Lords Sitting of 28 June 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Sligo and Cashel Disfranchisement (167).
Committee—Irish Land (122–168).
Third Reading—Turnpike Trusts Arrangements * (132), and passed.

IRISH LAND BILL—(No. 122.) (The Earl Granville)
  House again in Committee (according to Order).

  PART I.—LAW OF COMPENSATION TO TENANTS.
  Clauses 1 to 12—Claim to Compensation.
  EARL FORTESCUE EARL FORTESCUE moved to insert a new clause after Clause 9. The latter clause enabled a landlord to resume occupation, if the Court deemed it reasonable, of land not exceeding the 25th part of a holding, for the erection of labourers' cottages. His proposed clause was a proper pendant to this, for it enabled a landlord to resume occupation of land not exceeding half an acre or one-tenth of a holding, if required for the site of a school, place of worship, courthouse, police-barrack, or public building, the same precautions being taken against an unreasonable or malicious exercise of the right. Unfortunately, neither Protestants nor Roman Catholics were always disposed to afford facilities for each other's schools or churches, and the clause would give the landlord an advantageous power.
  Moved, after Clause 9. insert the following Clause:—
  ("Any landlord may after six months' notice in writing to be served upon the tenant, or left at his house, resume possession from a yearly tenant of so much land (not to exceed in the whole half an acre, or in any case one tenth part of the holding of any one tenant,) as he may bonâ fide require for a site for a school, church, chapel, or place of religious worship, or for a courthouse, police barrack, or building to be used for any such public purpose; and such resumption of land shall not, unless the Court shall be of opinion that the same was unreasonable, be deemed a disturbance of the tenant within the meaning of this Act, and shall not subject the landlord to any claim for compensation, except in respect of improvements, beyond an abatement of rent equivalent to the value of the land taken; provided, that in estimating the

  1053
  value of land so taken due regard shall be had to the situation of such land and to the general circumstances of and mode of husbandry practised on the holding.")—(The Earl Fortescue.)
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMobjected to the noble Earl's clause.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsupported the clause, which he thought a very valuable one.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the proposition had been very much discussed in the House of Commons, and decided in the negative, and he hoped it would not be pressed on the present occasion.
  THE EARL OF BANDONdeemed it very desirable to give the landlord power of taking up land for purposes of public utility.
  On Question, Whether to insert the said Clause? Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause 10 (Derivative title of tenant).
  Amendment moved, line 8, leave out from ("holding") to ("assignment") in line 32, and insert ("with the consent of his landlord in writing").—[The Earl of Leitrim.)
  LORD CAIRNSpointed out that the clause gave no power to assign, nor prohibited it, but simply denned succession.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause, amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Partial exemption of certain tenancies).
  Amendment moved, line 37, after ("holding") insert ("or holdings held under one landlord").—[The Earl of Limerick.)
  LORD CAIRNS, in support of the Amendment, suggested a case where a tenant with a holding of £30 or £40 under one landlord, and an adjoining holding of several hundred pounds' rental under another wished, in anticipation of the passing of the Bill, to make an agreement with the former, but could not do so as he did not come under the clause as it stood. The aggregate value of a tenant's holdings should surely be the criterion, for it was immaterial whether there was one holding or several.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would consider the point before the Report.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Exemption of certain lands).
  Amendment moved, after the words ("purposes of pasture") insert ("or meadow, being of permanent grasses").—(The Lord Dunsany.)
  LORD DUFFERINurged that there was a distinction between pasture and meadow, the latter being highly cultivated, while it was not usual to apply manure, or exercise works of cultivation with regard to the latter, which were always exempted under the clause.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDhoped the noble Lord did not himself act on his dictum that manure was not applied to pasture.
  LORD DUFFERINhad not meant to say that operations were not performed on permanent pastures, but that there was a difference in the nature and extent of the operations on pasture and those on meadow land.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDadmitted that the noble Lord's second argument was much better than the first, and saw no reason for adding the words proposed, which related to demesne lands and town parks.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMthought the noble Duke was quite wrong.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTY, though approving the Amendment, hoped it would not be pressed, seeing that it had no chance of success.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  LORD CLONCURRYproposed to insert, line 17, after ("resides") a Proviso—
  ("No tenant shall at any time break up or convert into tillage, without the previous consent in writing of the landlord, any lands which were so used at the time of the pasing of this Act.")
  The prosperity of Ireland largely depended on its live stock; but the clause as it stood would be a direct inducement to the tenant to convert pasture into arable land, as he would thus secure compensation under Clause 3.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYcontended that the Amendment adopted last night, prohibiting a tenant from breaking up pasture without the landlord's consent, sufficiently met the case. The Amendment, moreover, was quite inapplicable to the present clause.
  LORD CAIRNSremarked that last night's Amendment provided that nothing in the Act should authorize a tenant to break up pasture without his landlord's consent. It did not in terms prohibit it, and the point certainly required consideration.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYobjected to the introduction of a general prohibition applicable to holdings where no prohibition at present existed.
  EARL GREYurged that a tenant might in this way inflict an injury which it would take many years to retrieve. He suggested that the Government should undertake to consider before the Report whether there was sufficient protection to the landlord.
  LORD CAIRNSsuggested that the clause might read—"any holding let to be used"—instead of—"any holding used"—wholly or mainly for the purpose of pasture.
  EARL GRANVILLEaccepted the alternative.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  LORD DUNSANYcomplained of the obscurity of the Proviso, that—
  "Nothing herein contained shall prevent the tenant of any such holding making any claim which he would otherwise be entitled to make under Sections 4, 5, and 6 of this Act."
  He proposed to restore it to its original meaning by providing that the tenants of such lands should not be entitled to compensation for disturbance unless they were entitled thereto before the passing of the Act.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYexplained that the intention was to exclude compensation for disturbance in the case of demesne lands, parks, and pasture except under Clauses 4, 5, and 6.
  LORD DUNSANYthought it unjust that he should have to pay compensation for improvements which, he should probably get rid of as soon as he could.
  LORD DUFFERINthought that compensation ought not to be barred in cases where absentee landlords intentionally let out their demesne land or parks for agricultural operations.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYpointed out that a considerable sum might have been expended in drainage, roads, and fences on such land, or have been paid to the outgoing tenant with the landlord's sanction. Compensation surely ought to be given for such an outlay.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMobjected to the clause as encouraging absenteeism.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDdid not see that it would either encourage or discourage absenteeism. If it was the practice in Ireland to let parks for agricultural purposes, the tenant ought, according to the principle of the Bill, to be entitled to compensation for his outlay. He should accept the Proviso as it stood.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKurged the hardship of imposing the payment of compensation on a landlord who wished to enter into possession of his demesne.
  LORD CAIRNSreminded the noble Earl that Clause 31 excepted mansions and demesne lands from the leasing powers of limited owners.
  LORD PENZANCEthought the clause was badly drawn, but held that demesne lands, being capable of improvement, came within the general principle of compensation for improvements. The Amendment would unfairly exclude a certain class of tenants from rights which they ought to enjoy in common with others.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, that paragraph 2 exempted
  "Any holding which a tenant holds by reason of his being a hired labourer or hired servant of the landlord."
  He proposed to add these additional words—
  "Or as permissive occupant or caretaker; or any cottier tenancy within the meaning of the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment (Ireland) Act, 1860."
  Caretakers, though not so numerous as formerly, were still numerous, poor persons being placed in this position from charitable motives. Sometimes, he was sorry to say, they made an unworthy return, and occasionally they converted their holdings into freeholds. Unless they were debarred from compensation an unfair advantage might be taken of the landlord's kindness. As to cottiers, he feared that the Bill would unintentionally upset the Act of 1860, which had led to the building of many cottages; for the great majority of cottage holdings might be brought under the operation of the Bill, thus preventing landlords, through motives of prudence, from encouraging such holdings.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the case put by the noble Earl was fully met by the 4th sub-section of the clause, which exempted a holding expressed in the document to be let for the "temporary convenience" of the landlord.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDsuggested that the words "of the landlord" should be omitted from sub-section 2.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas willing to take the suggestion of the noble Lord into consideration, and to postpone his decision upon the point until the bringing up of the Report.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that sub-section 4 provided that no compensation shall be payable under the preceding provisions of the Act to the tenant of
  "Any holding let and expressed in the document by which it is let to be so let for the temporary convenience or to meet a temporary necessity either of the landlord or the tenant, and the letting of which has determined by reason of the cause having ceased which gave rise to the letting."
  He proposed to leave out the words "and expressed in the document by which it is let to be so let," and also all the words to the end of the clause.
  EARL GRANVILLEopposed the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made, by inserting subsection "(5.) Any cottage allotment not exceeding a quarter of an acre."
  LORD DUNSANY LORD DUNSANY moved to insert after Clause 12 a new clause—
  "In all tenancies where there is any reservation to the landlord of buildings, timber, hedgerows, or fences, or any covenant on the part either of the landlord or tenant to keep the same in repair, such reservation of covenant shall be held to imply a right on the part of the landlord, or his authorized agent, to enter upon the land and premises demised at all reasonable times in order to ascertain whether any waste or damage has been committed, and whether the covenants aforesaid have been observed by the tenant."
  The object of the clause was to give to the landlord a reasonable power which the altered state of the law denied him—namely, to go over his land, in order to ascertain whether the tenant complied with the terms of his covenant. Ordinarily, the landlord might use his discretion in rejecting the tenant at the termination of the lease; but now that the
  1058
  latter was to be rooted in the soil, the former was not permitted to exercise that discretion. The clause would not prejudice the tenant in any way whatever, and he hoped, therefore, the Government would accept it.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought there was no occasion for the clause. If a right of entry was thought desirable it could be the subject of agreement.
  THE DUKE OF MANCHESTERsupported the Amendment.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he had frequently felt it necessary to protest against provisions in this Bill on the ground that they interfered with existing agreements. On the same principle he must dissent from this Amendment.
  EARL GREYsuggested that the principle of the Amendment might be adopted in the case of yearly tenancies. At present if a yearly tenant refused to allow his landlord to enter for the purposes stated in the Amendment, the latter might put an end to the tenancy. When this Bill became law he could not do so without paying compensation.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought that the point raised by his noble Friend (Earl Grey) was of considerable importance, and therefore the Government would consider the question of adopting the Amendment in the case of yearly tenancies.
  LORD DUNSANYurged on the Government to consider whether it ought not to be adopted in the case of tenancies on lease also?
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he could not see what reasonable objection there could be to requiring Irish landlords and tenants to follow those regulations in respect to this matter which had been followed in this country with advantage. In this country the landlord always reserved a right of entry to see that the covenants of the lease were duly carried out.
  LORD PENZANCEsaid, he hoped their Lordships would not be induced to alter existing contracts made by lease between the parties in this particular. In the case of tenancies from year to year, when the indirect power which the landlord possessed by means of eviction to go upon the land to ascertain whether there had been any breaches of covenant was about to be taken away, it might be desirable to provide some substitute for it; but in regard to leases

  1059
  the case was wholly different, because there the parties had either entered into a covenant to allow this thing to be done or they had not; and if they had not it would be a strong course for their Lordships to alter the terms of the contract. Those landlords who had secured to themselves by covenant the power of entry would retain that power, and those who had not so secured it at the proper time ought not to have it as against the tenant.
  EARL GRANVILLErepeated his promise that, as far as regarded yearly tenancies, the point would be considered by the Government before the Report was brought up.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD VAUX OF HARROWDEN LORD VAUX OF HARROWDEN moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following clause:—
  "No compensation shall be payable under the preceding provisions of this Act to any tenant who is disturbed in his holding by the act of his landlord in case such landlord shall bonâ fide provide and offer to such tenant another holding which in the opinion of the Court shall be equal in extent, accommodation, and value to the holding in which he shall be so disturbed."
  He thought some such provision would be highly beneficial as regarded the interest both of landlord and tenant, and with a view to the improvement of estates. It would be better to give the email tenant who was disturbed a good holding in place of the bad one from which he was evicted than to give him a small sum of money in the shape of compensation, which it was to be feared would soon be all spent. It might be said that this exchange of holdings might be effected by arrangement between landlord and tenant; but they all knew the difficulty of inducing very small tenants to give up hovels and holdings that were unfit for human occupation, and that difficulty would be much increased when the tenant became entitled, if removed, to a certain sum as compensation.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not assent to this new clause. One of the reasons rendering the introduction of the Bill necessary was the passionate attachment felt by the Irish tenant to that part of the country in which he was born, and where his friends and his kindred lived. But, according to the noble Lord's proposal, it would be quite possible to remove a tenant from a hold-
  1060
  ing in the South of Ireland, where all his friends and relations lived, and transfer him to any other part of that country—or, indeed, of the world. Moreover, as he read the proposal, it would affect the tenant's claim—compensation for improvements.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, the case contemplated by the noble Lord who proposed the Amendment was dealt with in another part of the Bill; for if a landlord were to offer a tenant in the same neighbourhood, and on the same terms, as good a farm it would be unreasonable conduct in the tenant to refuse.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clauses 13 to 17—Proceedings in respect of Claims.
  Clause 13 (Proceedings by tenant).
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that as the clause now stood the tenant might go into Court, hear what compensation would be awarded to him for surrendering the farm voluntarily, and, if not satisfied with the decision of the Court, he might say he would withdraw his surrender and retain the farm. The landlord, in the meantime, thinking that the tenant was really going to leave, might make arrangements with some one else, and might be put to considerable trouble and expense because he could not carry out his agreement. To meet cases of hardship of this kind he begged to propose at the end of the clause to insert—
  "And any notice served by a tenant to claim compensation under any of the provisions of this Act shall be deemed a notice of surrender of his holding on the part of such tenant."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas understood to say that the case referred to was already provided for by an Amendment moved by a noble Lord on the Cross Benches.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsupported the Amendment, on the ground that the Bill placed in the hands of the tenant a power of vexatious proceeding which it was necessary by some means to counteract. It was optional for the tenant to make his claim, and therefore the landlord should be protected from having a notice of surrender served upon him, unless it were bonâ fide. There could be no possible hardship in mak-

  1061
  ing the tenant abide by his own voluntary act.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Proceedings by landlord).
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, these clauses would give rise to a mass of litigation; but, in order to prevent such litigation, it would be well to require that something should be done which would show how far the landlord and tenant agreed and how far they disagreed before they went into Court. That might give some chance, he feared a very feeble one, that they would not go into Court. He would, therefore, move, in page 10, line 5, after the word "latter," to insert the following words:—
  "Specifying the portion with his reason for disputing the same; and in case the landlord shall claim any allowances or deductions by way of set-off, or otherwise, he shall specify the same, and be at liberty to strike a balance and offer to pay the same."
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, the matter was otherwise provided for.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, his noble Friend near him (the Duke of Richmond) proposed to add some words at the end of the clause which would provide for the object the noble Marquess had in view.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there would be no objection to the Amendment of the noble Duke.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  An Amendment by adding at end of clause—
  "Unless within the time, and in the manner prescribed in that behalf, such dispute shall have been settled between the landlord and tenant."—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  VISCOUNT MONCK VISCOUNT MONCK moved a new clause to follow Clause 14. As the Bill stood, if there was a desire to make an alteration in the terms of the tenancy, supposing the landlord and tenant did not come to an amicable agreement, the only way the landlord had of enforcing his wishes was to serve the tenant with notice to quit. The notice must run for a year before it could be acted upon in any way; and during the whole of that time the landlord and tenant would be, so to speak, at arm's length, the land-
  1062
  lord appearing to wish to evict his tenant, while in actual fact he only sought to effect a re-arrangement of his estate—probably without intending the "disturbance" of a single tenant. He wished to do away with the necessity for this long lapse of time by providing that, before a landlord served a tenant with notice to quit, he should give him to understand the new terms he desired to introduce into the agreement between them; and, in the event of the tenant refusing to accept the terms, he proposed that the Court should be empowered summarily to decide whether the terms offered were reasonable. When the Court had so decided, the landlord would have to pay compensation if he proceeded to evict; and, on the other hand, the tenant, if he refused to accept the decision, would be liable to eviction without compensation. He might be told that his clause would introduce the principle of valuation of land by the Court; but his reply was that under Clause 15 the Court would conduct the valuation, but at a later period in the history of the complete transaction than he proposed. All he wanted was that the Court should be empowered to do in the first instance what it would be obliged to do in the last; and he thought this could be done without interfering with any vital principle of the measure by adopting his proposal.
  Moved, after Clause 14, to insert new Clause—
  "Any landlord who desires to alter the conditions upon which his holding is occupied by a tenant entitled under this Act to make any claim in respect of any right, or for payment of any sums due to him by way of compensation for disturbance, may serve upon such tenant a notice in writing, stating the particulars in which he desires such alterations, and on receipt of such notice the tenant shall be deemed to have acquiesced in such alterations unless he shall within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner serve a notice on the landlord stating that he refuses to assent to the whole or some portion of such alterations; and upon service of such notice by the tenant on the landlord a dispute shall be deemed to have arisen between the landlord and tenant as to the whole or some portion of such alterations; and such dispute shall be decided by the Court, unless previously settled by agreement between the landlord and tenant; and if the Court shall decide that the alterations in the conditions of the tenancy proposed by the landlord are either wholly or in part just and reasonable, and that the landlord is willing to permit the tenant to continue in occupation of his holding on such conditions; and if in consequence of the refusal of the tenant to assent to such

  1063
  alterations in the conditions of his tenancy, the landlord shall proceed to evict the interest of such tenant, such eviction shall not be deemed a disturbance of the tenant within the meaning of this Act, and shall not subject the landlord to any claim for compensation in respect of improvements."—(Viscount Monck.)
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONwas sorry to oppose the proposal of the noble Lord who had shown himself so strongly in favour of the principles on which the Bill before the Committee was founded; but he thought there could be no doubt that the proposal of his noble Friend would deprive the tenant of the right to notice to quit which he at present enjoyed under the law, by forcing him to come to an arrangement with his landlord as soon as the question could be brought before the Court, without the existing notice to quit on that longer term of notice proposed by the present Bill. Again, he thought the proposition was unfair to the tenants, for it stated that tenants who did not within a prescribed time make objection to the proposals of their landlords should be held to be bound by them; and all who knew anything of the poverty and ignorance of the great mass of Irish tenants must be aware that a proposal to impose upon them the necessity of taking a definite legal step ought not to be included in a measure framed in order to place them in an improved position with regard to their holdings. So far as he could agree in the wisdom of the noble Lord's proposals, he thought they would be effectually carried out by the operation of the Equities Clauses of the Bill; and, therefore, he could not agree to accept the proposed new clause.
  Clause negatived.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE moved to insert the following clause after Clause 14:—
  "It shall be lawful for the landlord to lodge in a prescribed joint stock bank within the district of the Civil Bill Court such sum or sums as he shall so admit, or as shall be adjudged to be payable by him, for compensation to the tenant on an accountable receipt in a prescribed form, which shall be lodged and remain with an officer of the Court to be appointed for the purpose, until he shall be satisfied that the tenant has given up possession of his holding to the landlord, and thereupon such tenant shall be entitled thereto, and to receive the amount on presentation at the bank."
  After a few words from Lord CAIRNS,
  Clause postponed.
  Clause 15 (Equities between landlord and tenant).
  Amendment moved, line 16, omit ("or unreasonable conduct").—(The Earl of Leitrim.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhoped the words would not be omitted. This was the clause which gave the Court power to consider all the surrounding circumstances; and, if their Lordships omitted these words, they would omit the sheet anchor of the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  EARL FORTESCUEobserved, that if strict legal evidence were required upon all the points which the Court would have to try great injustice would often be inflicted. Some of his noble Friends in debate had enlarged upon the accurate accounts which either were or ought to be kept, on every estate. But the same thing might happen to others which had nearly happened to himself—namely, the destruction of papers long out of date, and apparently of no value, save as containing matters of curious information. Fortunately he had preserved the documents; but as they related to transactions that occurred long previous to his father's succession to the title, there was nothing to lead to the supposition that they were ever likely to be of importance. The agent, however, in whose handwriting they were, together with his clerk, had long been dead; and though he himself was well acquainted with the practice of the estate, it would be difficult for him to explain every minute circumstance connected with these accounts. A few words would show the spirit in which the Legislature regarded this matter, and he, therefore, begged to move, in line 20, after ("first") insert ("whether the evidence adduced be strictly legal evidence or not").
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following clause:—
  "Provided always, that in every case of dispute between landlord and tenant heard before the Court the order of the Court shall be reduced into writing in the form of a decree or award (as the case may be), and shall state the items of claim allowed, that is to say, the particulars and character of loss sustained by the tenant in quitting his holding, and of the improvements and

  1065
  payment to his predecessor in title in respect of which compensation may have been awarded to the tenant under the third, fourth, and sixth sections, and also the particulars of any set-off, objection, default, or conduct allowed or taken into account."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought it would be far better to leave the Court to lay down rules as to the working of the Bill in such matters.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he was strongly in favour of the clause. He thought it very desirable that matters of this kind should be settled by Parliament and not left to the discretion of the Judges. Various appeals had been made elsewhere to the Government to lay down rules on which the assistant barristers should proceed, for they ought not to be allowed to throw into one lump the various matters which were submitted to them for decision. On the face of it, the award should state what points had been considered and what sum was awarded in respect of each. Indeed, he did not see how it was possible to appeal from the decision of the Court unless the grounds on which it was founded appeared on the face of the record.
  LORD O'HAGANthought it was not for Parliament to determine this matter. The mind of Parliament might be indicated, and the Court be trusted to define the way in which the award should be stated. He would, however, suggest that the noble and learned Lord's view might be met by adding the words—"Such decree or award to be made in the prescribed form."
  Clause amended accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill
  LORD CAIRNS LORD CAIRNS moved to insert a new clause to precede Clause 16—
  "Where a tenant claims the benefit of the Ulster tenant-right custom in respect of his holding, the Court shall ascertain whether he is entitled in respect of his holding to the benefit of any and which of the usages prevalent in the Province of Ulster as aforesaid, and if so, shall by its award or decree declare the same, and thereupon, subject to any variation of the decree on appeal, the usage so ascertained and declared shall be the usage applicable to the said holding."
  If there was a second dispute and there was no record of the former one, there would be no trace of the decision previously given.
  After short conversation, Amendment postponed.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to,
  Clause 17 (Restriction on eviction of tenant).
  An Amendment made, to add to the Clause the following:—
  ("A landlord shall in all cases have the option of paying the amount of compensation due into Court; and if at any time after the making of a claim for compensation as herein-before directed, and before finally giving up possession of his holding, a tenant shall be alleged to have done any damage to his holding or the buildings thereon, the Court shall inquire into the same, and allow to the landlord out of the money paid into Court such compensation as it may deem just. In no case shall a tenant, except by special leave of the Court, be entitled to receive the money so paid into Court until he shall have given up possession of his holding").—(The Lord Penzance.)
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, the Government would be willing to accept the Amendment, but that the Civil Courts had no machinery for receiving money paid into Court as the Court of Chancery had; and the clause inserted by the Commons respecting the payment of money into Court appeared to have been adopted without due consideration.
  After long conversation, in the course of which various forms were suggested, an adequate clause was framed.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  (Court to award Compensation.)
  Clause 18 (Court to mean Civil Bill Court, or the Court of Arbitration).
  Amendment moved, line 21, leave out ("The Civil Bill Court") and insert ("the chairman of quarter sessions sitting in open court in the County Court House"); and line 22, leave out ("or") and insert—
  ("And it shall not be lawful for such Court to hear any case before ten of the clock in the forenoon or after four of the clock in the afternoon").—(The Earl of Leitrim.)
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 19 (Civil Bill Court).
  Amendment moved, line 34, after ("judge") insert—
  ("Provided always, that the Judge shall himself without a jury decide any question of fact arising in any case brought before him under this Act").—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  After short conversation, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT MONCK VISCOUNT MONCK moved, line 8, to insert—

  1067
  ("The chairman, if he shall think fit, may reserve any question of law that arises at the hearing for the consideration of the Court for Land Cases Reserved at Dublin, and thereupon remit the case by way of case stated for the determination of that Court.")
  He made that proposal at the suggestion of very high judicial authority in Ireland.
  LORD O'HAGANthought the Amendment would increase the expense to the parties; and, on the whole, he preferred the clause as it stood in the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Appeal from Civil Bill Court).
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE moved, after "Lord Chancellor," to insert "the Lord Justice of Appeal" among the Judges who are to constitute the Court for Land Cases Reserved, for the purposes of this Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Court of Arbitration) agreed to.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORD VISCOUNT LIFFORD moved, after Clause 21, to insert—
  ("Nothing in this Act shall be so construed as to affect or injure the right of the landlord to accept or refuse a proposed incoming tenant").
  It was with a view to prevent litigation, and to carry out what he believed to be the intention of their Lordships and of the Government, that he proposed this Amendment.
  LORD DUFFERINsaid, nobody would accuse him of partiality to the tenant-right custom; but he must say he could not conceive anything more unjust and unfair, or more contrary to the intentions of the Bill, or the purport of the 1st and 2nd clauses, than the proposal of the noble Lord. The question of the respective rights of landlord and tenant would be adjudicated upon by the Courts in Ireland after evidence had been taken, the whole subject thoroughly considered, and the circumstances of the case substantiated, far better than could be done by any attempt on the part of Parliament to define or regulate tenant-right in any manner whatever. If Parliament were to make any such attempt, he believed it would result in greater injury to the landlord than to the tenant.
  THE EARL OF DARTREYsaid, he gave every credit to Her Majesty's Go-
  1068
  vernment for their intentions; but if they declined to accept the Amendment, or to make any provision in the Bill for the selection of tenants, it would be fixity of tenure in disguise, and the landlord would lose all power of supervision of his property. He feared litigation would be the consequence; and he trusted, therefore, his noble Friend would persevere with his Amendment.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it would be better to leave the Court to decide in each case as to the particular usage on each estate.
  THE EARL OF BANDONsupported the Amendment in the interest of the tenant rather than the landlord. He would repeat in that House what he had often said in the presence of his own and other tenants, that it was more a question for them than for the landlord. It would be a great disgrace, no doubt, if a bad tenant should get upon his property; but he might live at so great a distance as to suffer no inconvenience from the circumstance, while it might be a matter of the most serious inconvenience to the other tenants if one bad tenant should get into their immediate neighbourhood.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDhoped his noble Friend would not divide; if he did, he could not go into the Lobby with him.
  On Question, Whether to insert? their Lordships divided:—Contents 40; Not-Contents 59: Majority, 19.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Clauses 22 to 27—Powers of Limited
  Clauses 22 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Power of limited owner to lease).
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKproposed certain words, in order to render it perfectly clear that the Civil Bill Court must act strictly upon the provisions contained within the four corners of the Act, in confirming or refusing to confirm leases granted under the Act.
  Amendment moved, line 32, leave out ("if it thinks just") and after ("or") insert ("if in its judgment such lease or any parts thereof are contrary to the provisions of this Act").—(The Earl of Limerick.)
  EARL GRANVILLEthought the proposed Amendment unnecessary.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 25 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.

  PART II.—SALE OF LAND TO TENANTS.
  Clauses 28 to 37.
  Clauses agreed to without discussion.

  PART III.—ADVANCES BY AND POWERS OF BOARD.
  Clauses 38 to 52.
  Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
  Clause 40 (Advances to tenants for purchase of holdings).
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNexpressed surprise that these different clauses appeared to attract so little attention. Their Lordships were sanctioning what, if it was not a revolution in the tenure of property, was certainly a very serious experiment; and he thought it desirable that some limits should be imposed on the proceeding. £20 appeared to be the very lowest amount at which the owner of property would be willing and qualified to undertake the responsibilities of a freeholder.
  Amendment moved, page 21, line 16, after ("Act") insert—
  ("Provided such holding be valued under the Acts relating to valuation of rateable property in Ireland at an annual value of not leas than twenty pounds").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble Lord could not be aware of the effect of his own proposal. Out of the 600,000 holdings in Ireland, upwards of 500,000 were under £15 in value, without counting those which were between the £15 and the £20 limit. The proposal of the noble Lord, therefore, might be regarded as a simple and expeditious mode of putting an end to that part of the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  EARL GREYrose to move the omission of the clause. The clause proposed that public moneys might be advanced to assist tenants in Ireland to purchase the properties which they occupied. He had no objection to tenants becoming proprietors through their own industry and energy—though he had little faith in the power of the existing race of smaller
  1070
  proprietors to hold their own against the competition of larger capital and larger properties; but he did object to the State coming forward as a lender of money to enable tenants to acquire the lands on which they lived. It was true that restrictions had been inserted in the clause upon subletting, dividing, or assigning the properties which the State thus assisted the tenants to purchase; but, as had been truly said, the State had no machinery whatever for carrying out these prohibitions. Even in the case of private owners, stimulated by every motive that individual interest could supply, it was extremely difficult in practice to resist that tendency to subdivide plots of land which was the strongly-marked characteristic of occupiers in Ireland; how was it, then, to be supposed that the State, which had no resident agents, would be able to enforce these prohibitions? Then, what would happen? A purchaser who owed the State two-thirds of the value of the land would very likely allow his son or his daughter to occupy a portion of that which he had purchased; the population would gradually increase, and in the course of a short time the land, in spite of the legal prohibit, would, in fact, be held by a multitude of petty occupiers, in small patches that would barely afford subsistence to those who were upon them. How was the State to obtain payment of the interest on the purchase money, and the annual instalments which would be due to it? Would it be possible in order to enforce these payments to proceed against a multitude of small occupiers in all parts of the country and to deprive them of their holdings? In the interests of the English taxpayer and of the public Exchequer he protested against this clause, which would cause the country to embark on a policy that must inevitably result in the State losing a large sum of money. Their Lordships should remember that they had had sufficient experience of the proposed system, because in the Colonies all attempts to recover the payment of small quit-rents had failed, in spite of the prosperity of the holders of the lands; and he was sure that the result in Ireland would be similar, because in bad years it would be absolutely impossible for the occupiers to meet the payments which the State would expect. He was told that it was only proposed to advance £1,000,000 for the purpose of assisting the tenants;

  1071
  but the smallness of the amount asked for rather increased his objection to the clause, for if it were intended that this scheme should produce any real impression upon the condition of Ireland, and have a substantial effect on the distribution of property, the grant should have been £20,000,000 or £40,000,000. But the smallness of the proposition would lull the British taxpayer into a false sense of security; while by the clause there would be started a change which, if it became popular among the tenantry of Ireland, could not be stopped, and the £1,000,000 now granted must be followed by other and larger sums. Therefore, both on the ground of economy and for the real welfare of the people of Ireland, he protested against the proposition. This clause would tend, if it had any real operation, to bring back the dreadful state of things that existed in Ireland before 1846, when the population, which was crowded on the land, suffered frightful misery. He also objected to the clause on political grounds, and asked their Lordships whether anything could be more calculated to produce disaffection in Ireland than to constitute a large number of the proprietors of small holdings in that country debtors to the State? There was much force in the observation that the Emperor of the French had shown his sagacity by interesting a large number of his subjects in the maintenance of the existing Government by inducing them to become holders of the public funds of that country so as to give them a direct interest in securing peace and upholding the new form of government. Such a design was founded on political wisdom. But this proposition if adopted would have an exactly opposite effect, for it would cause a large number of the people of Ireland to become debtors to the State, and to feel that if they could carry any such measure as the repeal of the Union they would not only gain a political object, but would also relieve themselves from a debt which must hang like a millstone round their necks. The direct effect and tendency of the clause would therefore be both to offer a premium to political disaffection and also to increase that desire for the possession of land which was already too strong among the Irish people. By their Lordships' decision as to this clause he should be guided in his conduct as to the succeeding clauses. If this were retained
  1072
  it would, of course, be useless for him to move the omission of those which immediately followed it, and which were necessary for giving effect to it. He begged to move that the clause be omitted.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he regretted he could not on this matter agree with the arguments of the noble Earl, whose independent course in all matters relating to Ireland he had always admired—because they were not those of party. In sanctioning the second reading of this Bill, the House had, for good or for evil, confirmed the system of small tenancies in Ireland; and the question for their Lordships to discuss was, how they could best forward that state of things which was advocated by the Government measure? He objected to the British taxpayer being mentioned in the argument. The Irish people contributed their share of taxation, and they had, therefore, a right to demand that the Imperial resources should be applied to the benefit of that country. The principle of this clause had been adopted in Canada, Prince Edward's Island, and other Colonies, and had been introduced in Prussia, where it had worked extremely well, the instalments of the repayment being regularly forthcoming. This clause he looked upon as being the only honest one in the Bill, for it was just that whatever loss had arisen from the course that had been adopted towards Ireland by English legislation should fall, not upon the landlord, but upon the Imperial Exchequer. With other parts of the Bill he believed the Irish tenants would not be satisfied, for they had not petitioned in its favour. They wanted security of tenure, and in many speeches of different Members of Her Majesty's Government, they had been led to expect that they would derive some immediate and absolute gain from the Bill. Under this clause they would get it, for as they paid off the rent-charge each year they would feel that they were becoming possessors of the land. The right hon. Gentleman who proposed this part of the Bill had stated that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government that more than one paltry million of money should be applied towards making the people of Ireland daily more contented by enabling them to become the proprietors of the soil. As the instalments were paid the security of the Government would become better

  1073
  and better every year; while the inducement of the tenant to continue his payments would become greater and greater, and his interest in preserving peace would correspondingly increase. With the exception of the four millions granted during the famine, every farthing that had been advanced to Ireland out of the Imperial Exchequer had been repaid. No Englishman would object to a few millions being advanced under this clause, if it would tend to the pacification and the prosperity of the Irish people. If the present great and powerful Minister at the head of affairs were to propose the advance of a large sum to purchase estates at a rate not exceeding 20 years' purchase a small proprietary would be created which would tend greatly to the stability of existing institutions; and, more than that, the Irish people would feel that this was not a case of taking money from one Irishman to give to another, as in the case of the Irish Church Bill and the other clauses of this measure, but that by this clause the Imperial credit would be used for their benefit—and that was a thing which would be appreciated. The transactions might be carried out without the loss of a single shilling to the Imperial Exchequer, while it would confer the greatest possible benefit upon Ireland by inducing a feeling of satisfaction and goodwill.
  LORD DENMANreminded their Lordships that in 1824 a proposal had been made by Colonel Maberly, in the House of Commons, for advancing £1,000,000, by way of loan, to Ireland—it was to encourage different sorts of industry, and his noble Relative had voted for that grant, but in this clause an attempt was made to enable a tenant, without capital, to farm land profitably. He knew how sanguine Irishmen were on this point. He employed on land some of an Irish family, and he knew that the wages of the whole family amounted to £4 a week (£208 a year), partly from mining and wages at a cotton mill. He had asked the head of the family how he would be able to repay a loan for the purchase of land? His answer was—"Oh, if I had but 10 acres of land I could do very well." He (Lord Denman) asked—"How would you purchase manure?" His answer was—"It costs only 2s. 6d. a load, and straw costs only £1 a ton;" but he ventured to think that the loss of the £4 a week would be severely felt, and that it was desirable that other
  1074
  means of profit should be discovered rather than a mere application of labour to land. He admitted that in all labour there was profit; but the low price of manure and of straw only showed the want of a good market for agricultural produce, and he hoped that some better method might be discovered for securing the prosperity of Ireland.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not admit in the slightest degree the assumption of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Earl Grey), that the proposal contained in the clause was both wrong in principle and impossible in practice. The noble Earl had divided his objections into two classes—the one economical, and the other political. In answer to the economical objections of the noble Earl, he might observe that, though various opinions upon the subject existed amongst eminent political economists, there were many who advocated the principle of the clause, and these were able to quote the experience of Belgium, Prussia, and other parts of the Continent, where, according to Arthur Young's trite saying, "the magic of prosperity had turned a desert into a garden." In any case, he thought that the experiment was worth trying. Doubtless, to obtain the greatest amount of produce from land it was best that it should be cultivated by a tenant possessing capital under a wealthy landlord; but in many cases the state of affairs did not permit that condition of things to occur in Ireland, and therefore it was necessary that the next most advantageous terms should be secured. The noble Earl had objected in the strongest manner to the advance of money by the State to the Irish tenant to enable him to purchase his holding. The noble Earl had, however, made one concession, though certainly not a great one—he said that he had no objection to the tenant buying his holding with his own money. The noble Earl grounded his objection to the advance of money out of the Imperial Exchequer to the Irish tenant, on the ground that such a course would be calculated to injure the English taxpayer; but he (Earl Granville) could not see how the English taxpayer was likely to be injured by a scheme which would result in restoring peace, order, and industry in the sister country. The noble Earl had stated that all experience showed that there was very little chance of these email peasant-proprietors re-

  1075
  paying to the State the money they borrowed. He (Earl Granville) was of an entirely different opinion, and he was aware of an instance that supported a contrary view. In that case money had been lent to small farmers for the reclamation of bog land in Meath. The repayment was to be made in half-yearly instalments, extending over 20 years. The money had been all repaid, the last repayment having been made in 1849. That experiment, though only on a small scale, had been attended by a result which spoke strongly for the gratitude of the people. As to the political advantages of the proposal, if it should be acted on by those for whom it was intended, he agreed with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) who spoke on this point in the discussion on the second reading, that it would be desirable not to have a very considerable portion of the land of Ireland either in the hands of very large proprietors or in those of very small tenants. He believed it important that there should be established in Ireland such an independent class of farmers as were to be found in many counties of England; but, at the same time, he thought it would be well if they could establish there a class of small landed proprietors similar to those found thriving and respectable in many parts of Europe. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) said that in this case the Government were following an opposite principle to that adopted by the Emperor of the French, when they proposed to make a large number of small farmers borrowers from the State. He (Earl Granville) thought if they were to give a large number of persons an immediate interest in the country to which they belonged they would create a feeling of tranquillity and a disposition to support the institutions of the country, which would operate greatly in favour of peace and order. The experiment now proposed was, indeed, only on a small scale; but should the people avail themselves of it Parliament could easily extend it. Believing, as he did, that the proposition in the clause would be acceptable to the people of Ireland and to very many of the Irish landlords, he hoped their Lordships would reject the Motion of his noble Friend.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that after looking at the clause from an economical and a political point of view he felt bound to vote in favour of
  1076
  the clause. He did so, however, on grounds different from those which the noble Earl had just urged. Though he thought that economically small holdings were a mistake, because they could not pay, he believed that practically they were of considerable advantage. But he drew a marked distinction between the principle of small holdings and the mode in which the Government, in the clause now before their Lordships, proposed to give it effect. It was not the poorest class of tenants who would avail themselves of the clause; but there was much reason to fear that purchases would be made by small farmers who would not have the additional capital to cultivate the land. Such persons would not only ruin themselves, but would become a burden to the State. It was a doubtful experiment to make the State a creditor, and a still more doubtful one to make the State a collector; when it might have, perhaps, to collect at the point of the bayonet, as the tithes were collected in 1836. The proposed experiment was only on a small scale; but he confessed if he were an Irish landlord, he would view it as the only compensation given him for the many sacrifices imposed by this Bill. Looking on it in that light, he did not feel at liberty to oppose the clause. Besides, much expectation had been raised in Ireland by the presence of this clause, and that being the case he did not think it would be judicious to reject it; but the Government having proposed it, to them he would leave the responsibility of carrying it out.
  THE EARL OF FINGALLsaid, he had intended to say a few words on the second reading of the Bill; but, at that stage, it was received with such general favour that he thought any observations of his would be superfluous. The Bill having reached Committee, a change appeared to have come, if not over the spirit of their Lordships' House certainly over its acts. Noble Lords opposite who had received the Bill with complacency were now cutting it up in piecemeal.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYrose to Order. Their Lordships were on Clause 40 of the Bill. If the noble Lord in the Chair was invested with any authority, he hoped he would keep Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Question is—"That Clause 40 stand part of the Bill?"
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he thought their Lordships would not

  1077
  grudge a little time in order that so important a clause should be fully and fairly considered. Their Lordships perhaps found it tedious work to be sitting so long over the Bill; he submitted that it was one which Irish landlords might be pardoned for wishing to have fully debated. If an Irish Parliament were discussing a Bill of this kind for England, what would be the feelings of an English landlord if an attempt were made to stop him when he rose to speak on it?
  THE EARL OF FINGALLthanked the noble Earl for having interfered to procure him a hearing. He believed that the Bill even in the state in which it first came before their Lordships from the other House of Parliament would barely have been received as a satisfactory settlement of the land question, by those who lead and who express the feelings of the tenant class in Ireland. At the same time, he had a strong conviction that if the Bill had passed through their Lordships' House without any serious alteration, it would have been cheerfully and gratefully received, as those very leaders had already shown a disposition to come to terms, and had lowered their demands upon every fresh concession. He implored their Lordships it so completely against the interest of to stay their hands and not to continue to mutilate the Bill. If they persevered in altering the small tenants, they would make it worse than worthless as a settlement of that question. He dared not hope that any words of his would have weight with their Lordships; but he held it to be a duty which he owed to himself and to his country to say a few words on behalf of the small tenants in Ireland.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, nothing could be more irregular, or more at variance with the suggestions thrown out earlier that evening by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, than the speech to which they had just listened. Their Lordships were engaged in discussing the 40th clause of the Bill, when the noble Earl (the Earl of Fingall) got up and took to task noble Lords on that (the Opposition) side of the House for the manner in which they had proposed the Amendments they deemed necessary in the measure—telling them that the Bill as it came up to that House would scarcely have been accepted in Ireland, and protesting
  1078
  against what he called its mutilation. He would not follow the example of the noble Earl, but would state to their Lordships his view of the clause immediately before them. On the second reading he had said that he thought this part of the scheme of the Government was wrong in many respects, and contrary to good policy; but, as it had been considered and accepted by the other House of Parliament, which was held to be pre-eminently the guardian of the public purse, he did not think he should be justified in opposing the proposed grant of public money to assist Irish tenants in purchasing the estates they might wish to buy. And he added that one negative advantage attending the plan was that the grant proposed was so small that, practically speaking, little mischief could result from its operation.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he believed this part of the scheme to be a sham, and that it would be impossible to carry it out; and he thought the Government knew that to be so as well as he did himself. Noble Lords opposite talked of making experiments in a great kingdom very much as they might talk of making them on their own farms. He was rather surprised to find his noble Friend who had just sat down justifying this proposal by saying that it had been assented to by the House of Commons, the guardian of the public purse. It was true their Lordships' House could not impose taxes, but they could prevent taxes from being imposed—a great privilege of which they ought to be proud, and which they ought to exercise on suitable occasions. That proposal, when it first appeared in the horizon of politics, was ridiculed by some, abused by others, and by none was it more completely pulled to pieces than by a very eminent Member of the Government, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, he believed, was the "guardian of the public purse." That experimental proposal—the suggestion of an individual Member of the Cabinet, and which had not a leg to stand upon—was, nevertheless, brought forward and thrust into a Bill of much importance, and one framed with great ability and power of thought. It had not been defended by any statesmanlike arguments, and he said it was a "sham." If unfortunately, it became a reality,

  1079
  why were they to tax the English people to buy for Irish tenants the estates of their landlords? Again, what could be more ridiculous than to provide £1,000,000 only for such a project? A hundred millions sterling would not suffice to carry out the principle to the full extent. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) had referred to the thriving class of small proprietors who were to be found in various countries in Europe. No doubt, the peasant-proprietors of Tuscany were a thriving class, and their country the most carefully cultivated in the world; but the old English yeomen—whose rapid disappearance he regretted—could not live as they used to do under the existing economical conditions of the country. It was impossible that on their own small properties they could subsist in comfort and support the load of taxation under which this country groaned, as they did before the Great War entailed such heavy burdens on the community. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Earl Grey) had done right in making at least a protest against this proposition. If the proposal were a good one, it ought to be carried out to the utmost; if a foolish one, it ought not to be dallied with as it was by the Government. If Her Majesty's Government carried out this scheme could they lay their hands on their hearts and say that they believed the tenantry of Ireland, such as they had described them, would be good creditors, and would not give the statesmen of this country every possible trouble hereafter?
  On Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Clause 41 (Advances of tenants for purchases of holdings in Landed Estates Court).
  THE EARL OF POWIS THE EARL OF POWIS moved to omit the last paragraph which forbade the alienation or subdivision of any holding, charged as aforesaid by order of the Landed Estates Court, without the consent of the Board. He did so on the ground that the tenant who had been declared the purchaser of his holding ought to have full liberty of dealing with his property in the same manner as any other person.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved that the clause be omitted. It was obvious that an estate sold in the manner contemplated would not fetch its full value. It would be thought so invidious a thing if a tenant wished to buy his holding to bid against him, that no one would venture to do so. If a tenant had money of his own there was no objection to his purchasing; but he must protest against the Government finding the money for the tenant. He should move, therefore, that the clause be struck out.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought it almost impossible to adopt this Amendment with any consistency after having passed the last clause. The whole argument of his noble Friend seemed to be founded upon the rather sensational story told the other day by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns), about a tenant saying in the auction-room that he had bid so much and he hoped nobody would bid against him. A noble Friend of his had told him that he had often heard the same story in Ireland, but in a different sense. An estate was put up for sale, and it was agreed beforehand by the landlord that it should be sold if it fetched £17,000. But it did fetch £26,000, and when one of these holdings was put up a man in a frieze coat said—"I am ready to give so much; will you bid against me?" He had another story to tell. Two persons were commissioned to buy a picture, and they were bid against by somebody in a corner; upon which one of them said—"Oh, this gentleman is bidding against the National Gallery," upon which the man in the corner immediately desisted and they got the picture. That was an instance of the good nature sometimes exhibited in such matters. He could not conceive on what principle of justice they should offer this boon to the tenants of Ireland in general and then take it away from that portion exactly who were placed in the greatest difficulty, seeing that the landlord to whom they were attached by the most grateful feelings might be succeeded by a stranger who might treat them harshly. He thought it impossible for their Lordships to adopt the Amendment.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, there was another story which the noble Earl had not told, it was that the Trustees of the National Gallery sent two agents to buy a picture, and they bid against each other

  1081
  until they raised the picture to an extravagant sum. Apart, however, from all anecdotes, he objected to the clause. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) said, that in consistency they were bound to accept it as they had passed the former clause. But the cases were entirely different. The principle of Clause 40 was that if the landlord and tenant agreed, without any compulsory sale, that the latter should purchase his holding, the tenant might come to the Government to advance him a certain part of the price. As far as regarded the relations of landlord and tenant, no possible harm could arise from that. But under Clause 41 they would have a tenant going into the Landed Estates Court and bidding for the property of which he was the occupying tenant not out of his own resources, to which there could be no objection, but armed by the Government with two-thirds of the purchase-money. Such a man would be in a position preferable to that of any other intending purchaser. Let them observe the consequences of all this. If a tenant went into the market and bid for his holding there was the obvious danger that the public would not bid against him, from the fear that if they did so, and succeeded in becoming purchasers, they would be but laying the seeds of rancour and ill-feeling in such a way as to lead to the reaping of ill fruit in the future. But of the two dangers he thought the greatest was to be found in the proposal to put into the hands of tenants the means whereby they could injure the sale of their landlord's property. As several anecdotes had been told from the other side of the House in the course of this discussion, for the purpose of illustrating and enforcing the views held by noble Lords sitting there, he might be allowed to state some facts in support of the view which he held. In November last a portion of the estate of Lord de Lisle, in the counties of Cork and Limerick, was sold in the Landed Estates Court. Several lots sold at prices varying from 20½ to 24 years' purchase. At length a lot occupied by one John O'Donnell was put up. It contained 113 acres 1 rood and 30 perches, was held at a rental of £165 19 s. 4d., and was put up at £2,000. Some other bids followed; and after £2,400 had been offered the tenant got up and, offering £2,500, said in a very distinct and em-
  1082
  phatic voice that he was better entitled to purchase the lot than was anyone else in the room. The result was that not another bid was made, and this particular lot sold for 15 years' purchase, as against 20 to 24 years' purchase in the other cases. A similar occurrence happened at a sale of some property in the county of Carlow. There were two lots, the first of which fetched 20½ years' I purchase; but when the second lot was put up the tenant offered a sum equal to 10 years' purchase, and roared out, "I am the tenant," the result being that there was no other bidding. The Judge, I however, very properly postponed the sale of that lot and proceeded with Lot three. He mentioned these facts to show what would arise if the tenants were allowed to bid at sales with public money. He admitted that the tenants to whom he referred went to the sales with their own money and not with grants from the State; but "if these things are done in the green tree, what will be done in the dry?" He ventured to think that such scenes as he had described would be multiplied and aggravated if the proposal of the Government were carried.
  After a few remarks from the Earl of CLANCARTY,
  LORD O'HAGANcontended that one of the greatest wants of Ireland to remedy the evils under which the country suffered was the creation of an independent small proprietary, and until such a body was found a peaceable state of things could not be looked for. But this object could not be secured unless the clause now being considered was allowed to remain in the Bill. Such scenes as the noble and learned Lord had described had occurred in Ireland, and would occur there again—tenants frequently made such statements in order to induce other tenants not to bid against them—but he did not think the passing of this Bill would tend to increase their frequency, for the reason that the measure had been framed in order to do justice to the holders of land, and so diminish the necessity for appeals such as those made by the tenants whose cases the noble and learned Lord had related. Particular objection had been raised to assisting tenants purchasing in the Encumbered Estates Court, although, as matter of fact, that class stood in more urgent need of assistance

  1083
  than did any other tenants in Ireland, by reason of the fact that the persons purchasing large estates in the Court turned out, as a rule, the most selfish and exacting landlords to the small tenants holding under them. He admitted that the Bill was, as a whole, an experiment. Some said it was a doubtful experiment; but this he could not, for one, believe. Be that as it might, however, unless the present clause were retained the experiment would have a very small chance of succeeding, and, therefore, he hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment. It had been objected as an argument against the proposal, that the sum to be advanced by the Government was very small; but he (Lord O'Hagan) thought the Government deserved great credit for not having proposed to advance larger amounts. There was one instrumentality applicable to purchases under the Landed Estates Court which related to no other class in Ireland. It had been one great fortune of his life that when Attorney General he introduced the Record of Title Bill for Ireland. That measure affected only the purchasers in the Encumbered Estates Court; but they were the very persons of all others upon whom it was desirable that the experiments contemplated by this Bill should be tried. The cheapness of purchase, facility of transmission, and security of property under the provisions of that Act, all indicated these persons as the very best class upon whom this experiment of small independent proprietorships could be tested.
  LORD DUNSANY, agreeing with much that was contained in the speeches of both the noble and learned Lords, suggested, for the consideration of the Government, whether there were not parts of the country in which it might be dangerous to allow the experiment of an open sale in the event of the tenants desiring to purchase—for instance, in those parts of Ireland where the Peace Preservation Act had been recently put in force.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, there was nothing to prevent any tenants who wished to buy an estate which was being sold in the Landed Estates Court from agreeing with the landlord as to the price, and submitting that price to the Judge of the Court. But what he objected to was the open bidding.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not conceive why, when the market was open, and the landlord was compelled by circumstances to sell in the Landed Estates Court, the tenant, who had the strongest possible inducement to buy the estate if he could, should be restrained from doing so.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that as the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord O'Hagan) had declared this clause to be essential to the working of the experiment, he would not throw any obstacle in its way. He retained all his own objections to the clause, but would not press his Motion for its rejection.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 42 (Landed Estates Court to afford facilities for purchase by occupying tenants).
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he thought it very objectionable that where so much had already been done to give security to the occupying tenants, they should further be permitted to appear in Court and make suggestions as to the size of the lots in which the estate should be sold. Suppose there were 2,000 small tenants on an estate, this clause was a direct suggestion to each of them that he should appear before the Court.
  Amendment moved, line 23, to leave out from ("and") to end of the clause. —(The Earl of Limerick)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that as the object of these clauses was that tenants, if able to purchase the property, should be at liberty to do so, it seemed but reasonable that the Court should have the power of getting from the tenants any information which might be desirable as to the way in which the estate could most advantageously be divided into lots. It by no means followed that the Court would act upon the information thus supplied to it; and nobody, he believed, distrusted the action of the Landed Estates Court.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.

  PART IV.—SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS.
  Clauses 43 to 52, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clauses 53 to 60—As to Legal Proceedings and Cowt.
  Clause 53 (Duty on notice to quit) agreed to, with an Amendment.
  Clause 54 (Regulations as to notice to quit).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, in lines 13 and 14, to leave out "a year," and insert "six months," with the view of limiting to the latter period the interval at the termination of which a notice to quit should take effect.
  EARL GRANVILLEaccepted the Amendment, observing that it was important that differences between landlord and tenant should not extent over a longer time than was absolutely necessary; but stated his intention of adding a few explanatory words to the clause on the Report.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  PART V.—MISCELLANEOUS.
  Clauses 55 to 60, inclusive, agreed to.
  LORD DUNSANY LORD DUNSANY moved to insert a new clause before Clause 61—
  "Where a tenant is bound by any covenant to keep agricultural buildings, premises, drains, or other improvements in repair, but where no penalty is prescribed for the violation of such covenant, it shall be lawful for the landlord to apply to the Court to compel the tenant to fulfil the covenant, and the Judge shall decide according to what he believes to be the spirit and intention of the covenant, and any order made by the Judge for the fulfilment thereof shall be binding upon the tenant."
  EARL GRANVILLEthought the proposed clause unnecessary.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 61 to 65, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 66 (Distress).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved the omission of the clause. He said it was inconsistent with other clauses in the Bill. The Government were not responsible for it in the beginning. It was put into the Bill at a late period in the other House of Parliament.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, this clause was very strongly pressed on the Government when the Bill was under discussion in the other House of Parliament. His own opinion was, that the Law of Distress should be abolished; and Judge Longfield and a very eminent land agent in Ireland had expressed themselves as being very strongly of the same opinion. It was true that this clause was, to some extent, inconsistent with other clauses of the Bill; and if the noble Duke pressed
  1086
  his Amendment he would not divide against him; but he reserved to the Government the right of endeavouring to give effect to the object of the clause in some other way if they should think it advisable to do so.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 67 (General definitions) agreed to.
  Clause 68 (Special definitions).
  LORD CAIRNS LORD CAIRNS moved an Amendment to definition of a "holding"—
  "The term 'holding' shall mean a farm or other holding of a tenant which is agricultural or pastoral in its character, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral"—
  namely, to add at the end of the foregoing the words—
  "And shall include all the land of that character held by the same tenant of the same landlord."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsuggested that the Amendment required some modification of detail to meet cases where a tenant might have one holding by lease, and another from year to year from the same landlord, and the like. The addition of some such words as "under the same landlord, on the same estate, and under the same contract," would answer the purpose.
  Amendment altered accordingly, and agreed to.
  Amendment moved, line 20, after ("holding,") to insert—
  ("Manures shall mean any manures other than the ordinary manure made on the farm that shall be proved to have been used upon it within not more than four years previous to the end of the tenancy, and then unexhausted; such manures shall be taken to be exhausted in the manner following:—Lime and bones in four years in equal yearly proportions; town manure and marl in three years; guano and superphosphate used for turnips or mangolds in two years in like proportions; provided, that whenever any two following crops of the same kind shall have been taken from the land they shall be considered to have exhausted the manure.")—(The Lord Talbot de Malahide.)
  EARL GRANVILLEobjected to the Amendment as drawing a very inconvenient hard-and-fast line.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment moved, at end of Clause 68, to insert—
  "The term tillages shall mean such acts of cultivation done in the last year of the tenancy as shall enure to the benefit of the crop of the succeeding year."—(The Lord Vernon.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was better to leave the matter to be decided by evidence before the Court.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to,
  Amendment moved, after Clause 68, to insert the following Clause:—
  "In the cases of all estates of one thousand acres and upwards (situate in the same county), it shall be competent, within a year from the date of the passing of this Act, for three-fourths of the tenantry thereon to apply to the Court to release such estate from the provisions of this Act, and the Court shall as soon as practicable, after first obtaining the consent of the landlord, make an order for such release, and from the date of such order such estate shall no longer be subject to the provisions of this Act or any of them; provided, that at any subsequent time within the duration of this Act, it shall be competent for one-third of such tenantry for the time being to apply to the Court to rescind such order, and the Court shall rescind it accordingly."—(The Marquess of Bristol.)
  EARL GRANVILLEopposed the clause on the ground that it would not work.
  After a few remarks from Lord CLANCARTY,
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that while he, with all noble Lords on that side of the House, appreciated very highly the motives which had actuated the noble Marquess in bringing forward his clause, he could not but think that it would be out of place to pass it at the present stage. He would, therefore, suggest that the noble Marquess should be content with the expression of opinion which had been called forth and not press his Motion further.
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOLsaid, he would, in deference to the advice of his noble Friend, withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  On the Question, That the Amendments be reported to the House,
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, he desired to express his distinct dissatisfaction with the proceedings in Committee on the Bill, which, in his opinion, had been brought in with rancour and party spirit directed against the landlords of Ireland, and opposed only from fear lest
  1088
  the same mode of proceeding should be adopted on this side the Channel. He was perfectly satisfied that the Bill would not give satisfaction to one-tenth of the people in whose favour its promoters said it had been framed. It would inflict great cruelty upon Ireland, by running a large number of small capitalists and driving very many of the labouring classes from the country.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 168.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock A.M., to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.