HL Deb 28 June 1870 vol 202 cc1052-69

Clauses 1 to 12—Claim to Compensation.

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 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 LEITRIM

objected to the noble Earl's clause.

THE EARL OF CLANCARTY

supported the clause, which he thought a very valuable one.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, 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 BANDON

deemed 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 CAIRNS

pointed 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 GRANVILLE

said, 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 DUFFERIN

urged 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 RICHMOND

hoped the noble Lord did not himself act on his dictum that manure was not applied to pasture.

LORD DUFFERIN

had 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 RICHMOND

admitted 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 LEITRIM

thought 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 CLONCURRY

proposed 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 KIMBERLEY

contended 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 CAIRNS

remarked 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 KIMBERLEY

objected to the introduction of a general prohibition applicable to holdings where no prohibition at present existed.

EARL GREY

urged 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 CAIRNS

suggested 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 GRANVILLE

accepted the alternative.

Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

LORD DUNSANY

complained 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 KIMBERLEY

explained 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 DUNSANY

thought it unjust that he should have to pay compensation for improvements which, he should probably get rid of as soon as he could.

LORD DUFFERIN

thought 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 KIMBERLEY

pointed 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 LEITRIM

objected to the clause as encouraging absenteeism.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

did 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 LIMERICK

urged the hardship of imposing the payment of compensation on a landlord who wished to enter into possession of his demesne.

LORD CAIRNS

reminded the noble Earl that Clause 31 excepted mansions and demesne lands from the leasing powers of limited owners.

LORD PENZANCE

thought 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 COURTOWN

said, 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 KIMBERLEY

said, 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 LIFFORD

suggested that the words "of the landlord" should be omitted from sub-section 2.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

was 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 LONGFORD

said, 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 GRANVILLE

opposed the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made, by inserting subsection "(5.) Any cottage allotment not exceeding a quarter of an acre."

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 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 GRANVILLE

thought 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 MANCHESTER

supported the Amendment.

LORD CAIRNS

said, 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 GREY

suggested 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 GRANVILLE

thought 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 DUNSANY

urged on the Government to consider whether it ought not to be adopted in the case of tenancies on lease also?

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

said, 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 PENZANCE

said, 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 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 GRANVILLE

repeated 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 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 GRANVILLE

said, 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- 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 CAIRNS

said, 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 CLANRICARDE

said, 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 CHANCELLOR

was 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 LONGFORD

supported 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- 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 CLANRICARDE

said, 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'HAGAN

said, the matter was otherwise provided for.

LORD CAIRNS

said, 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 GRANVILLE

said, 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 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- 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 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 RIPON

was 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 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 SALISBURY

hoped 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 FORTESCUE

observed, 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 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 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 CHANCELLOR

said, 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 CAIRNS

said, 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'HAGAN

thought 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 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'HAGAN

said, 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 moved, line 8, to insert— ("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'HAGAN

thought 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 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 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 DUFFERIN

said, 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 DARTREY

said, he gave every credit to Her Majesty's Go- 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 GRANVILLE

said, it would be better to leave the Court to decide in each case as to the particular usage on each estate.

THE EARL OF BANDON

supported 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 RICHMOND

hoped 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 LIMERICK

proposed 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 GRANVILLE

thought the proposed Amendment unnecessary.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 25 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.