INTERVENTION OF COURT.

HL Deb 05 August 1881 vol 264 cc923-89

Clause 7 (Determination by court of rent of present tenancies).

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that if the noble Viscount (Viscount Monck), whose Amendment stood first, and who was not now present, had deserted his own offspring, he (the Marquess of Salisbury) was prepared in a charitable spirit to take it in. He would be happy to move the Amendments of which the noble Viscount had given Notice, which appeared exceedingly valuable. He had himself on the Paper Amendments directed to the same object; but they were not so satisfactory as those of the noble Viscount. He begged to move the first—namely, in page 9, line 39, after ("term,") to insert ("and on any such application.")

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

THE EARL OF PEMBROKE

moved, as an Amendment, to leave out, in line 40, the words (" made payable,") and to insert the word ("increased.") The ob- ject of the Amendment was to prevent the rent being increased on account of improvements made by the tenant. It was supposed that, by the words of the Bill, the tenant might be misled as to his rights, and might claim a deduction of rent on the ground that the farm would be deteriorated, if it were not for the improvements he had made. The words he proposed had been suggested by Mr. Healy.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, it would be safer to keep the words as they stood. They must contemplate extreme cases, which the Amendment would hardly meet.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he understood the object of the noble Earl (the Earl of Pembroke) was to meet the views of the people of Ireland and their most popular leaders. This Amendment would restore Mr. Healy's words, which had been abandoned by the Government.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he did not consider that the alteration was necessary.

After a few words from the Earl of AIRLIE,

On question? resolved in the negative.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

moved the following Amendments, standing in the name of Viscount MONCK:—In line 40, leave out ("8,") and also ("in any proceedings under this Act; ") and in line 42 after ("title") insert ("during such statutory term.") The effect of these changes would be to amalgamate sub-sections 7 and 8, and make them read as follows:— ("During the currency of a statutory term an application to the court to determine a judicial rent shall; not be made except during the last twelve months of the current statutory term and on any such application no rent shall be made payable in respect of improvements made by the tenant or his predecessors in title during such statutory term.")

Amendments agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he had to ask their Lordships' attention to a sub-section which he proposed to add after sub-section 8, and which he thought it was impossible to exaggerate the importance of with respect to the Bill. The sub-section which he proposed to add was— ("The rent of a holding shall not be reduced in any proceedings under this Act on account of any money or money's worth paid or given by the tenant or his predecessors in title on coming into the holding.") The great controversy which had arisen, and which had been so keenly disputed in all the discussions that had taken place in regard to the Bill, had been with regard to the origin, nature, and economical bearing of that indefinite "something" which they had given to the tenant to sell, and which the tenant had never possessed before. It had been attempted to be shown that the sale of the goodwill was the sale of something which had grown up by reason of the occupancy, and that to sell it was to sell something which did not belong to the landlord, and that it could not affect the rent. In saying this, he was not speaking of the tenant's improvements, for they were all agreed that the tenant's improvements should be protected. He believed, indeed, that the tenant's improvements were protected by the existing law; but, if they were not, at all events they would be amply protected under the provisions of the Bill; but there was the indefinite something beyond the improvements—namely, the tenant's goodwill—and they would naturally be anxious to know where the goodwill came from, and from what source it might arise, seeing that it was to form part of the tenant's saleable property. The usual impression had been that two and two make four, and that if there was anything to the tenant over and above the profit of his labour and capital that matter was necessarily to be taken out of the landlord's right to the rent. But among all the ambiguous expressions that had been used by the Government, one thing was perfectly clear, that they had been advised by the Government that that something did not come out of the landlord's fair rent. Where it came from he had not exactly, been able to discover. It seemed to justify the theory of the spontaneous generation of wealth. It was derived from no source; it grew out of no soil; but it descended suddenly from heaven upon the tenant, and when he had received it, of course it was right that he should be allowed to sell it. But the only thing that concerned them was that it did not come out of the landlord's rent. Where it came from would be an interesting topic for discussion among the politico-economic writers of the future. That matter was one of purely scientific interest; and if he was satisfied that it did not come out of the landlord's rent he would leave it with much pleasure to the scientific inquirers of the future to determine what its exact origin might be. He should like to quote from the debate on the Bill—and he believed he was in Order in doing so—the words which the Government themselves had used with respect to this interesting subject. Two quotations would suffice for the purpose of showing that that was the view taken by the authors of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, last Tuesday, said— I deny that under the provisions of this Bill there is any ground whatever for saying that the tenant is enabled to sell, either in Ulster or in places where no Ulster tenant custom prevails, what is the landlord's, or is taken from the landlord. I deny that it will diminish in any degree whatever the rights of the landlord. And the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, speaking on the preceding evening, said— Is it true that the occupation element, the goodwill element, must be taken out of the landlord's fair rent? I utterly deny it. "We do not admit it for a moment. We believe that the goodwill element of tenant right grows up inevitably side by side in conjunction with, and outside of, the landlord's rent; that it is not carved out of the landlord's rent; and that it does not cut down the landlord's rent. Those were brave words, and he (the Marquess of Salisbury) desired to make them realities. It was always interesting to have assurances from the Government; but they had not the force of an Act of Parliament, and he desired, by his Amendment, to make the intentions of the Government a reality, and to introduce words into the Bill which would make it more clear, and prevent the honest and beneficent intentions of Her Majesty's Government from being, by any accident or inadvertency, evaded by any proceedings which arose under the Bill. The danger was not an imaginary one. There were two schools of thought on this subject. There were those who maintained that this purchase money was not to come out of the landlord's pocket; and there were other people who maintained that the land belonged not to one proprietor, but two proprietors, and whatever portion was fixed, the tenant had a right to something which was taken from the landlord's share. He would not stop to discuss to which of the two schools the new Commissioners belonged—the sound orthodox school of Her Majesty's Government, or the other school which gave so much trouble in Ireland—but he would say that, while he fully admitted that the Commissioners were the most conscientious and honest people in the world, that was not the point of importance. If the Commissioners were honest and conscientious, they would act according to their view of what was just, and according to their particular theory of what goodwill was. He wished to make it perfectly clear, by words inserted in the Bill, that they should be worthy members of the school to which he was happy to recognize Her Majesty's Government belonged. It was not only a question of the existing Commissioners, be they ever so sound or orthodox. They were, unhappily, mortal, and if any of them disappeared during the existence of the Act, and that was inevitable, Parliament would have no share in determining who should succeed them, and, therefore, no share in determining the precise school of thought by which the difficult line between goodwill and fair rent should be drawn. Who the Government might be at that time, to what school they might belong, what political exigencies they might recognize, how far they might think it right to subordinate to the political pressure of the moment the convictions which they themselves had, at other times, loudly pronounced, how far they might think it right to adopt the unscientific, incorrect, and unjust doctrines of the school which was unfortunately dominant in many parts of Ireland at that moment, it was impossible for him to prophesy. They only knew it might be in their power to introduce into the administration of that Commission the unjust and unscientific doctrines which the present Government repudiated and denounced; and he thought their Lordships would only be taking a wise and just precaution if they took care that the price of goodwill was not in any degree taken from, or did not cut down, the landlord's rent. He believed the Amendment to be of the first importance as deciding whether, in a pecuniary sense, the Bill should or should not be a measure of gross confiscation; and he would only say for himself that it was only on the understanding that some such Amendment might be made with their Lordships' approbation that he consented to the second reading of the Bill.

Moved, in page 9, line 42, after ("title"), to insert (" the rent of a holding shall not be reduced in any proceedings under this Act on account of any money or money's worth paid or given by the tenant or his predecessors in title on coming into the holding.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD WAVENEY

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it was insidious, and that its effect would be to diminish the Ulster Custom to a very great extent. The great difficulty now experienced in Ireland was for a tenant once out of his holding to get another. There was no room for him, and he would refer their Lordships to an instance in which a tenant who had emigrated, not doing well, came back again, but being utterly unable to get a holding, he became desperate, procured a gun, and shot his landlord. He thought it very natural that doubts should arise as to the origin of the third element in the value of the Ulster Custom; but, on the whole, he was satisfied with the intentions and explanation of the Government.

VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT

, said, that there seemed to be a great misconception of tenant right on the part of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury). The tenant right had never, in Ulster, been supposed to come out of the landlord's rent, but was subject to it, being the difference between the rent and the full annual value of the holding; because a landlord in Ulster recognized that the buildings, which had, in most cases, been erected by the tenant, and reclamation of land by the tenant, were his property, and no rent was charged upon the tenant's improvements.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, if the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) wished to learn from what quarter the goodwill element of an Irish tenant right claim was derived, he could only refer him to the Province of Ulster, where it had existed and been tested for many generations, and where he (Lord Carlingford) thought it was pretty clear that the element was not carved out of the landlord's fair rent. But the question now before their Lordships was that of the noble Marquess's words. He did not believe that there was any question of principle at issue between the noble Marquess and the Government upon those words; still it did not follow that it would be expedient to accept them. The words which the noble Marquess proposed to add were totally unnecessary for the object he himself had in view. The Government believed that they would add nothing to the security which all parties would possess at the hands of the Court in fixing the fair rent; and they preferred, with respect both to this Amendment and that of which the noble Marquess had given Notice to follow, as a definition of fair rent, to adhere to their own wording of the clause. But he did not put the matter entirely on that ground. It was easy to perceive that an imperative direction of this kind given to the Court might lead further than was anticipated, and might cover cases which probably, by the admission of all, ought not to be covered. For instance, these words of the noble Marquess did not say who the party was to whom the "money or money's worth" had been paid. The money might have been paid to the landlord himself. It was conceivable in an extreme case—and they were legislating for extreme cases—that a landlord might have taken a fine from a tenant, might have fixed his rent accordingly, and subsequently, for no other reason than his own will and pleasure, might have raised that rent, in which case the proceeding would evidently have been an inequitable one, and one which the Court ought not to be debarred from considering. Then there was another case, perfectly conceivable, also, and one which would distinctly come within the words as they stood. It was the case in which the tenant might, upon coming into his holding, have paid a sum of money, perhaps a large sum, to the tenant before him, with the knowledge and privity of the landlord—exactly the case contemplated by the 7th section of the Land Act of 1870, a transaction out of which the landlord had probably considerably profited himself by the recovery of arrears of rent. Supposing, subsequently, the landlord, from no reasonable cause, had raised this tenant's rent, choosing to ignore the transaction to which he was a party, was the Court in such a case to be debarred from even considering the question? If such extreme cases might follow, it would be extremely dangerous to adopt the words of the Amendment; in fact, they believed in many cases they would lead to inconvenient and improper results. On these grounds the Government would adhere to their own framing of the sub-section.

EARL CAIRNS

said, the noble Lord (Lord Carlingford) had, after much consideration, presented to their Lordships two cases which he thought might cause embarrassment if the Amendment were agreed to. One was the case where the incoming tenant might have paid a considerable sum of money to the outgoing tenant, with the knowledge of the landlord, and where the landlord might have had his arrears of rent paid out of that money. That was, in reality, nothing more nor less than the active principle of the Ulster tenant right. In 999 cases out of every 1,000, the landlord not only knew that money passed, but knew also the amount of it. Not only so; but on many of the large estates not only was the landlord aware of the money passed, but there was a fixed sum beyond which the ingoing tenant was not allowed to go in giving money to the outgoing tenant. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal declared the other night that the custom of Ulster was such that the rent was perfectly independent of the money paid for tenant right; but now the noble Lord said that if the sum paid by the incoming tenant was paid with the knowledge of the landlord, the Court ought to take that into consideration. In other words, the Court was to do the very thing which the noble Lord said the other night it ought not to do. The clause might be modified in order to meet the other case to which the noble Lord referred. There need, therefore, be no difficulty in accepting the Amendment from any of the cases cited by the noble Lord. It had not been proposed without careful consideration. It was quite plain that, however this right was acquired, it affected a large sum of money; and it was quite right that the landlord should have some safeguard that if a value was to be attached to goodwill it should not diminish the rent.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

said, if the proposal in the Bill was that the Commissioners should take into consideration any sum that the tenant had paid for his holding, and estimating that as against the landlord's rent, he should go with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) in opposition to a clause to that effect. The Amendment also would be futile; it would not be possible to get behind the mind of the Commissioners and prevent their taking into consideration any such payment if so disposed; but there was another point in regard to the matter he would call their attention to. Let him ask, why had their Lordships accepted the second reading of the Bill? It was with the idea—whether it was to be realized or not—that the measure would do something towards the pacification of Ireland, and because they wished to put an end, if possible, to a grievance, partly real and partly imaginary, felt by the Irish people in respect to the Land Question. Now, if they sent the Bill to Ireland with the words of the Amendment in it, so far from the measure being a measure of pacification, it would tend to make disloyal the only loyal portion of the people of Ireland. The insertion into the Bill of the sub-section would wave a red flag in the face of every tenant in Ulster, and lead him to believe that he was deprived of his tenant right, for he would look upon the sub-section as a direct attack upon the tenant right already existing.

THE DUKE OF ABERCORN

said, that, having had an experience of nearly half-a-century of tenant right in Ireland, he could not understand why the Government, in view of the understanding that was generally attached to the custom, could refuse to accept the Amendment. He contended that if Ulster tenant right was correctly described in Mr. Sharman Crawford's definition of it, there could be no objection to the Amendment of the noble Marquess.

VISCOUNT LIFFORD

supported the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

expressed the opinion that the logic which had been used in support of the Amendment, while it, no doubt, would enable the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) to achieve an easy victory over Her Majesty's Government, would hardly suffice to induce their Lordships to agree to this proposal. Indeed, no one who had regard to the peace of Ireland could wish to see the Amendment adopted. The Government had over and over again declared, and no one more so than his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal (Lord Carlingford), that goodwill in Ulster had no effect whatever on rent. He (the Duke of Argyll) had never believed it; for it was capable of absolute proof that tenant right and rent were, to a certain extent, conflicting, and there must be a balance struck between them. He could not understand how so many of his noble Friends in Ireland sincerely believed that goodwill had no effect upon rent. He supposed the reason was this—that they saw a good deal of land in Ulster let at say 30s. an acre, bringing what they thought to be a fair rent; but they might depend upon it that, without the tenant right, the land would let at 40s. or 45s., or some higher figure. As a general rule, it was an arithmetical certainty, therefore, that tenant right contributed to the reduction of rent. There was no doubt, too, that tenants often paid a pretium affectionis for the tenant right. While he said this, however, he could not agree to the proposal of the noble Marquess. It might be perfectly true that the Government ought to accept the Amendment; but he could not accept it, because he believed that tenant right in Ulster was a legal custom that ought to be sanctioned, and because he believed that this custom gave the tenant a share in what would otherwise be rent. Let them see what the declaration of the Amendment was. It was that consideration as to goodwill should be absolutely excluded by the Court in the determination of rent.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Only excluded in the reduction of rent.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

pointed out that, notwithstanding any limitation such as was pointed to, the Amendment would be a very dangerous one, for if the words of the noble Marquess were accepted, goodwill would not be allowed to enter into the minds of the Court in considering what was a fair rent. He admitted that the principle would be fair if applied to other parts of Ireland than Ulster, where the goodwill had never been acquired; but it was the principle of the Bill that that right should be extended to all tenants; and, after their Lordships had agreed to the second reading, they could not, in his opinion, draw back from the principle. At all events, in Ulster it would be confiscation to infringe upon the right now existing; and he therefore thought the Amendment ought not to be accepted by the House.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he would not enter into a discussion with the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) on controversial questions as to tenant right and rent; but quite agreed with the practical conclusion to which his noble Friend had come, and was glad to find that he opposed the Amendment. The great objection to the Amendment was that, in the form in which it was proposed, it dealt partially, and not completely, with the subject which it touched, and so tended to bring them back into the quagmire of insoluble problems. The interjection of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), with reference to the reduction of rents, was, in his opinion, a remarkable illustration of the imprudence of attempting to give any instruction of this kind. The noble Marquess had explained that he did not say the Court was not to take the premium paid for the goodwill of the farm into account; but only that it was not to be taken into account on the reduction of the rent. Under that arrangement, however, it might be quite open to the landlord to go to the Court, and say—" See how low the rent is, and how much cause there is for making addition to it when such a large price has been paid for the tenant right," so that the operation of the words, as proposed, would be most unfair. All attempts at definition, when equitable principles ought to be applied, were highly objectionable. It was enough that the Court should consider all the circumstances of the case, district, and holding. The tenant might have cause of complaint as well as the landlord. The Amendment was a most improvident one, and there could be no better proof how little its consequences had been considered than in its omission to provide for the case in which the tenant might have paid a fine or premium to the landlord himself on coming into the farm, an omission which it was now hastily proposed to supply. They were endeavouring to solve a difficulty by definitions which were neither complete, exhaustive, nor clear in their practical application. This would be a dangerous and unprofitable course, and it would be better to leave the matter to the equitable judgment of the Court. They must trust the Commissioners not to lay down principles which would eat into tenant right on the one hand, or into the landlord's interest on the other.

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

said, as regarded the Bill generally, he wished to make this observation—In 1870 Mr. Gladstone had told them that he inadvertently gave the tenant a share of the landlord's property; and now, by this measure, they were called on to give another share of the landlord's property to the tenant. He liked the frankness of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, who expressed his approval of "fixity of tenure," though the Bill, it was said, only meant to give "security" of tenure. The noble Lord could just as well have said that the Bill was an unjust Bill. He would have liked to see the same candour on the part of the Government; he would have liked to have heard them say—" The principle of our Bill is unjust, no doubt; but we are obliged to bring it in." But they could not help themselves. Like the apothecary in Romeo, paraphrasing the words, the Ministers might declare with regard to the Bill—"My necessity and not my will consents." At the same time, as the measure had not been thrown out, he must oppose the Amendment of the noble Marquess, as he believed the effect of it would be to disturb Ulster, as well as dissatisfy the rest of Ireland, and he could not see the necessity for doing that.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, they were placed in this unpleasant position as regarded the Amendment. They had to make up their minds to do one of two things—either to reject that which, undoubtedly, in some cases, would probably lead to the commission of a hardship and injustice; or, if they accepted it, they committed themselves to a statement which seemed to his mind, with all due respect to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), to be an economical absurdity. Suppose a tenant had two farms of equal natural value, and for one he had given nothing at all, and for the tenant right of the other he had given 20 years' purchase, he could not accept the proposition that in that case the rents of the two would be the same. He could not see how tenant right could exist without creating a corresponding diminution of rents. The proposition contained in the Amendment would create a widespread feeling of discontent among the tenants; and he, therefore, could not support it, for he believed that if it were carried, it would be thought in Ulster that it was wished to diminish tenant right. Such a course of proceeding would be highly impolitic.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

said, if their Lordships accepted the Amendment, they would be doing a manifest injustice; for if any deterioration of the property occurred the whole deterioration must fall upon the tenant right before the tenant or the landlord was affected at all. Nothing, he thought, could be more unjust than that, because the tenant might have given a large sum for the tenant right, and it might have been quite worth it; and yet, if the land depreciated in value, the whole depreciation would fall upon him, and the rent would not be affected until the tenant had lost his whole interest. That could scarcely be intended; and he therefore hoped the Amendment would not be accepted by their Lordships.

VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT

said, he would appeal to the noble Marquess to withdraw the Amendment, which went to the root of the Ulster tenant right, a custom their Lordships had so much difficulty in understanding. If it were accepted, it would be ruinous to the custom. Such a proposal, if engrafted on the Bill, would be considered as an attack on Ulster tenant right, and, consequently, must give rise to increased agitation, at all events in the North of Ireland.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

said, that nearly every speech had been logically in favour of the Amendment. It was admitted that if the tenant right was to be taken into consideration, it would reduce the rent to a minus quantity. It had been stated that land in Ulster must be let below the value, because there was no tenant right. Well, he had some property in the North of Ulster under the most unlimited form of Ulster tenant right, and other property in the South free from it, and the rents upon both were almost identical; but, curiously enough, in the South the rents were never changed, while in the North they were revised every 20 years. It was almost impossible for even an Ulster man to understand tenant right. Tenant right was never taken into consideration in fixing the rent. He thought that this was the most important Amendment that had yet been moved, and he hoped that their Lordships would adopt it, if his noble Friend should, as he (the Marquess of Waterford) hoped he would, press it to a division.

The Earl of LEITRIM and Viscount MONCK

rose together and began simultaneously to address the Committee. Neither noble Lord giving way, and there being calls for the former,

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

thought that, as many noble Lords on the Government side of the House had addressed the Committee, the noble Earl (the Earl of Leitrim) ought to be heard.

Viscount MONCK

then resumed his seat.

THE EARL OF LEITRIM

said, that he only wished to remark that the Amendment was of the greatest importance, especially with reference to Ulster. Perhaps it would be a surprise to noble Lords on the Ministerial side that he intended to vote with them. He felt inclined to trust the Court in this matter, because he wished to leave no opening by which tenants could complain that their interest was left unconsidered. He was a great believer in the Ulster Custom; it had worked with the greatest advantage, and under the Bill, while not approving of the extent to which it went, he felt certain that, by the extension of the custom of free sale to all Ireland, the landlords of estates in those parts which were overcrowded would derive the greatest possible benefit.

VISCOUNT MONCK

observed, that tenant right in Ulster arose from the forbearance of the landlords in not exacting the highest possible rent; and he hoped that they would not get into any complication through discussing the theory of rent. That forbearance on the part of landlords was not confined to Ulster; and what, through consideration, landlords had done for Irish tenants the Bill would make certain and permanent. Although the Bill would take certain powers away from the landlord, hitherto enjoyed by him, it practically would not take anything that was of real importance. He opposed the Amendment. He quite agreed with the remarks that had fallen from the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), and believed that amongst the rights that the Bill would take from the landlord was that of exacting from a tenant the highest commercial rent.

LORD INCHIQUIN

supported the Amendment, contending that if it were not inserted in the Bill landlords in Ireland would be treated very unjustly. He would draw the attention of their Lordships to a case of a tenant who took a grazing farm and said he had paid nothing for the goodwill. In a year he applied for a reduction of rent, and then, after considerable pressure, he had admitted that he had paid a considerable sum for it. If rent was to be reduced by the interest of the sum so paid for tenant right, landlords would suffer the greatest injustice.

THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY

said, there seemed to be an impression among their Lordships that the Amendment would attack the existing tenants of Ulster, and operate to the derogation of tenant right. Nothing could be more untrue. There was nothing in the Amendment which would affect any existing rights or past transactions of the tenant. The whole object and effect of the Amendment would be to prevent future rises in the price of tenant right from gradually eating away the rent of the landlord by the Commissioners having any doubt as to their duties, or taking an improper view of them. The interests which were at stake were very large. If it was allowed that a general rise of the tenant right, rising continually in proportion as the rent was lowered, was to have the power of eating away the rent, it was difficult to assign a limit to a process by which the rent would entirely disappear. The tenant right of the past would not be affected, the actual rights and the present privileges enjoyed by the Ulster tenants would in no degree be affected; but the rights and rents of the landlord would be saved from the future deterioration which would ensue if, unfortunately, the Commissioners should think that the prices given for the tenant right in the future were to be considered as a solid reason for reducing the rent.

THE EARL OF ANNESLEY

wished to ask the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal to tell him what he thought the Court would be likely to do in the following case—Suppose a tenant in Ulster had given 60 years' purchase for an acre of land, and that the land to the landlord was only worth 20 years' purchase, how did the noble Lord think the Court would act if the tenant applied to them to fix a judicial rent?

VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN

supported the Amendment.

LORD CARLINGFORD

, in reply, said, as far as he understood the noble Earl's (the Earl of Annesley's) question, it stated a miraculous case. Supposing, however, that such a miracle occurred, he should neither expect nor approve any such result flowing from it as was apprehended by the noble Earl. In fact, there would be no such result from the Bill.

THE EARL OF ANNESLEY

thought he was entitled to have an answer to his question. He asked the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal to give his opinion as to what the Commissioners would do in that given case. Evidently, the noble Lord was not acquainted with the prices paid for tenant right in Ulster. Forty years' purchase was no extraordinary price for tenant right in Ulster. The price had often gone as high as 50 and 60 years' purchase.

On question? Their Lordships divided: -Contents 157; Not-Contents 110: Majority 47.

CONTENTS.
Beaufort, D.	Gainsborough, E.
Leeds, D.	Haddington, E.
Manchester, D.	Hardwicke, E.
Marlborough, D.	Harewood, E.
Norfolk, D.	Howe, E.
Northumberland, D.	Ilchester, E.
Portland, D.	Lathom, E. [Teller.]
Richmond, D.	Leven and Melville, E.
Wellington, D.	Lindsey, E.
	Lovelace, E.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn)	Lucan, E.
	Manvers, E.
Abergavenny, M.	Mar and Kellie, E.
Bristol, M.	Mount Edgcumbe, E.
Exeter, M.	Nelson, E.
Hertford, M.	Onslow, E.
Salisbury, M.	Pembroke and Montgomery, E.
Winchester, M.
	Radnor, E.
Amherst, E.	Redesdale, E.
Annesley, E.	Romney, E.
Bandon, E.	Rosse, E.
Bathurst, E.	Rosslyn, E.
Beauchamp, E.	Sandwich, E.
Bradford, E.	Somers, E.
Cadogan, E.	Sondes, E.
Cairns, E.	Stanhope, E.
Carnarvon, E.	Strange, E. (D. Athol.)
Clonmell, E.	Strathmore and King-horn, E.
Coventry, E.
Devon, E.	Verulam, E.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens berry.	Winton, E. (E. Eglintoun.)
	Zetland, E.
Eldon, E.
Ellesmere, E.	Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.
Feversham, E.

Combermere, V.	Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
Cranbrook, V.
Doneraile, V.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)
Gough, V.	Heytesbury, L.
Hardinge, V.	Hylton, L.
Hawarden, V. [Teller.]	Inchiquin, L.
Hill, V.	Kenlis, L.(M. Headfort.)
Hood, V.
Hutchinson, V.(E. Donoughmore.)	Ker, L.(M. Lothian.)
	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Lifford, V.	Lamington, L.
Melville, V.	Leconfield, L.
Templetown, V.	Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)
St. Albans, L. Bp.	Manners, L.
	Massy, L.
Abinger, L.	Monteagle, L.(M. E. Egmont.)
Amherst, L.(V. Holmes dale.)
	Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)
Ardilaun, L.
Arundell of Wardour, L.	Napier, L.
	Northwick, L.
Balfour of Burleigh, L.	Norton, L.
	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Beaumont, L.
Borthwick, L.	Ormathwaite, L.
Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)	Penrhyn, L.
	Poltimore, L.
Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)	Raglan, L.
	Rayleigh, L.
Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	Rowton, L.
	Sackville, L.
Castlemaine, L.	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
	Saltoun, L.
Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Clinton, L.
Cloncurry, L.	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Colchester, L.
Colville of Culross, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Crofton, L.
De L'Isle and Dudley, L.	Strathnairn, L.
	Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)
de Ros, L.
Digby, L.	Talbot de Malahide, L.
Dinevor, L.	Templemore, L.
Donington, L.	Tollemache, L.
Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.	Trevor, L.
	Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)
Dunsany, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Ventry, L.
Elphinstone, L.	Walsingham, L.
Foxford, L.(E. Limerick.)	Wenlock, L.
	Wentworth, L.
Gage, L.(V. Gage.)	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)
	Wimborne, L.
Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)	Windsor, L.
	Wynford, L.
Harlech, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Ailesbury, M.
	Bath, M.
York, L. Archp.	Lansdowne, M.
	Northampton, M.
Cleveland, D.
Devonshire, D.	Airlie, E.
Grafton, D.	Belmore, E.
Somerset, D.	Camperdown, E.
Sutherland, D.	Dartrey, E.

Derby, E.	Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)
Durham, E.	Fingall, E.(E. Fingall.)
Fitzwilliam, E.
Fortescue, E.	Foley, L.
Granville, E.	Granard, L.(E. Granard.)
Jersey, E.
Kimberley, E.	Greville, L.
Minto, E.	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
Morley, E.	Houghton, L.
Northbrook, E.	Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Saint Germans, E.
Spencer, E.	Kenry, L.(E. Dunraven and Mount Earl.)
Suffolk and Berkshire, E.
Sydney, E.	Kinnaird, L.
Yarborough, E.	Lawrence, L.
	Leigh, L.
Canterbury, V.	Lismore, L.(V. Lismore.)
Eversley, V.
Falmouth, V.	Loftus, L.(M. Ely.)
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)	Lovat, L.
	Lyttelton, L.
Leinster, V.(D. Leinster.)	Methuen, L.
	Monck, L. (V. Monck.)
Powerscourt, V.	Moncreiff, L.
Sherbrooke, V.	Monson, L.[Teller.]
Sidmouth, V.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Torrington, V.
	Mostyn, L.
Exeter, L. Bp.	Mount Temple, L.
London, L. Bp.	O'Hagan, L.
	Penzance, L.
Aberdare, L.	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Ampthill, L.
Ashburton, L.	Ramsay, L.(E. Dalhousie.)
Belper, L.
Blachford, L.	Ribblesdale, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]	Robartes, L.
	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Brabourne, L.
Braye, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)	Sandys, L.
	Saye and Sele, L.
Calthorpe, L.	Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)
Camoys, L.	Skene, L.(E. Fife.)
Carew, L.	Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Carlingford, L.
Carrington, L.	Strafford, L.(V. Enfield.)
Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)
	Sudeley, L.
Churchill, L.	Suffield, L.
Clements, L.(E. Leitrim.)	Sundridge, L.(D. Argyll.)
Clermont, L.	Thurlow, L.
Crowe, L.	Truro, L.
Dacre, L.	Vernon, L.
De Freyne, L.	Waveney, L.
Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)	Wolverton, L.
	Wrottesley, L.
Emly, L.

Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, it would not be necessary to move the other Amendments of which he had given Notice to the clause, they being directed to the same object as the Amendment agreed to—that was, to prevent the rent of the landlord from being ground down by the proceedings of the Court.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

in moving, as an Amendment, in page 9, after sub-section (8), add as new subsection— (9.) Wherever a judicial rent has been fixed by the Court, if the payment of that rent shall be withheld more than six months after it shall have become due, the tenant shall pay interest on that rent at the rate of five per centum per annum from the date of its becoming due, said, that, apart from other causes, there was great probability that rents would still be withheld, owing to the general aversion to punctuality in money payments, which was greater in Ireland than elsewhere. The Bill did not provide for enforcing the payment of rent when due, and the expectation of the public was that the new rents should be punctually paid. A clause such as this was common in Scotch leases, and in some cases they contained a much higher penalty for unpunctuality, amounting to 20 per cent. At present Irish landlords were obliged to borrow—if they were able to borrow—at a much higher rate of interest, while the tenants who kept back their rents put their money on deposit into the banks. This sub-section would be a been to tenants under judicial rents, since it would give them six months' law, instead of their having to pay immediately their rents were due, as was supposed by the Bill.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

observed, that the Irish Government was in the habit of charging 5 per cent on all payments due to the Government.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

opposed the Amendment, remarking that the payment of arrears was already a difficult matter in Ireland, and would hardly be facilitated by the addition of a charge of 5 per cent.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

said, that the Amendment was not an extraordinary proposition; but he did not think that, if agreed to, it would be of any use.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Lease approved by Court during its continuance to exclude provisions of the Act).

VISCOUNT MONCK

moved, as an Amendment, in page 10, line 31, after ("tenancy") insert ("and for a term not exceeding sixty years.") The effect of the Amendment would be that, at the expiration of a judicial lease of a tenancy for a term not exceeding 60 years, the lessee of such tenancy would be deemed to be the tenant of a present ordinary tenancy from year to year.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

moved, as an Amendment, in page 10, line 32, to leave out ("present") and insert ("future") in the provision that, at the expiration of a judicial lease, the lessee shall be deemed to be the tenant of a present ordinary tenancy from year to year at the rent and subject to the conditions of the lease.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, he could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 (Regulations as to sales and application to Court to fix rent).

EARL CAIRNS

moved, as an Amendment, in page 12, line 25, to leave out ("founded on notice to quit,") and insert— ("As in the case of a power of re-entry upon condition broken contained in a lease. Provided always, That the tenant may, before any such proceedings are taken by the landlord, apply to the Land Commission, or, during the pendency of such proceedings, apply to the court in which the same may be pending, for relief; and the Land Commission or the said court may grant or refuse relief as the Land Commission or the said court, having regard to the conduct of the parties and to all the circumstances of the case, thinks fit, and in casa of relief may grant it on such terms, if any, as to costs, expenses, damages, penalty, or other matters relative to the breach as to them seems fit. Provided also, that no relief shall be given to any tenant under this section unless at the time of the application for relief such breach shall have absolutely ceased. The noble and learned Earl remarked that the only way in which, after a breach of a statutory condition other than the payment of rent, a landlord could get rid of a tenant was by giving notice to quit. Two serious consequences would flow from that arrangement, as it at present stood. One would be that the landlord would be liable to pay the ten- ant compensation for disturbance under the provisions of the Act of 1870, and another was that, in consequence of the long notice required to be given in Ireland, the landlord might have to wait for 12 or even 18 months before he could get rid of a tenant. That, he thought, was undesirable, and he therefore hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he was sorry he could not agree with the view taken by the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns); and he must therefore express a hope that their Lordships would not accept the Amendment. Its effect would be to entirely invert in point of severity the practice which had hitherto prevailed in Ireland with regard to non-payment of rent and breaches of conditions of this character. He should therefore advise their Lordships to adhere to the present state of things, which afforded many practical advantages, and which was understood by the tenants. If they gave the landlord the power of immediate re-entry, a power almost unknown in Ireland, the effect of such stringent legislation would be to produce a large amount of irritation. In the Act of 1870 there were clauses which prevented, in a great many cases of this kind, the granting of compensation for disturbance; and he thought it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the Court.

EARL CAIRNS

said, that if he understood the Government to say that the clauses referred to would prevent compensation in all the cases at which his Amendment was aimed, then he would be satisfied.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

was afraid that his noble and learned Friend was asking too much.

EARL CAIRNS

said, he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment, in order to take a division on the Amendment which had been put on the Paper by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Waterford), and which would raise the same question further on.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

EARL CAIRNS

said, the Bill provided that a tenant in arrear could sell his holding, and pay the rent out of the purchase money, and the idea of the Bill seemed to be that in this way eject- ment would be superseded. But there was no mode of putting the tenant in motion for the purpose of selling his holding and making that payment. The landlord, therefore, had to go through the circuitous process of ejectment, and then the tenant could sell. That, he thought, was an objectionable mode of procedure, and in order to obviate it he would move, in pages 12 and 13, to leave out sub-section ("4,") and insert— (4.) Where not less than one year's arrears of a judicial rent payable in respect of a holding is due to the landlord, it shall be competent to the landlord (without prejudice to any other remedy for the recovery of such arrears) to apply for and obtain from the court an order that, unless the amount of arrears of rent be paid within a time to be named in such order (not being longer than three months from the making of the order), the interest of the tenant in the holding shall be sold by the sheriff in like manner as chattel interests in land are now sold under a writ of fi, fa.; Provided that—

1. "(a) The interest so sold shall be assigned to the purchaser by a deed to be executed by the court which has made the order for sale; and
2. "(b) The purchaser shall be entitled to an order from the court, in the nature of an injunction, for the sheriff to put the purchaser into possession of the interest which shall appear by the said assignment to have been granted to the purchaser; and
3. "(c) Where a sale takes place under such an order the landlord shall have no right of preemption; and
4. "(d) The arrears of rent and the cost of the proceedings under this section shall be a first charge upon the purchase moneys."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he was surprised that such a scheme should be recommended by his noble and learned Friend. He could not see his way to accept the Amendment, which was in no way necessary for the protection of the landlord's interests, and which would practically take away the tenant's right of free sale. Under the law as it stood the tenant was entitled to six months' notice, and it was his interest to avail himself of the power of sale. He deprecated the idea of making that power compulsory. He therefore hoped their Lordships would not accept it. The Amendment also proposed to attribute to the Court under this Bill, which was in principle a Court of Arbitration or conciliation between landlord and tenant, the functions of the ordinary Courts of Law, including that of issuing writs to sheriffs for process of execution. He thought it would be better to leave the question to the present legal authorities, and trusted his noble and learned Friend would not press it.

LORD O'HAGAN,

said, that a sale under a writ of fi. fa. in Ireland was not generally satisfactory. He thought such a sale would be injurious to the tenant and not beneficial to the landlord; and as the landlord had ample power at present he saw no occasion for the Amendment.

EARL CAIRNS

thought the tenant would be much worse off if the landlord treated him as an ordinary creditor would treat him. The Amendment was really in the tenant's favour. He would not, however, press his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

moved in page 13, line 13, after ("tenancy,)" to insert- (5.) A tenant compelled to quit his holding during the continuance of a statutory term in his tenancy, in consequence of the breach by the tenant of any statutory condition, shall not be entitled to compensation for disturbance. His object was to prevent the landlord being under the necessity of paying his tenant for compensation for disturbance when the tenant had broken his statutory conditions. It was just that such an Amendment should be agreed to, and he therefore hoped his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal would accept it.

LORD CARLINGFORD

opposed the Amendment. He held that the tenant deserved some measure of compensation, and, in aggravated cases, he would only get it on a very small scale. Indeed, in such cases as were contemplated by the noble Marquess the landlord would undoubtedly not have to pay compensation for disturbance. But there were cases in which the landlord might serve notice to quit for a breach of conditions that might only be of a trifling technical character; and in such the Government deemed it best not to deprive them of the opportunity of appealing to the benefits of the compensation clauses. The matter was dealt with, and, he considered, sufficiently dealt with, by the Act of 1870.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

said, that his noble Friend seemed to have forgotten his own Bill. If the condition broken was of such a moderate character as contemplated by the noble Lord, then the Court would grant the tenant relief under Section 4 of the very clause they were discussing. He contended that the Bill was not specific upon the subject, and urged that it would be a terrible thing if the tenants were able to break the standing conditions and then claim compensation. The Amendment was a very proper one, and he should press it to a division.

LORD HARLECH

supported the Amendment.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

said, the Government had not shown sufficient reason why the Amendment should not be introduced.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

repeated the assurance given by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, that the Land Act of 1870 covered the subject of the noble Marquess's Amendment. He did not think it was really worth while to alter the Bill in such a small matter.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

said, it might not always be a tenant's fault that he could not keep the statutory conditions; and, if it were not his fault, it was hard that he should be debarred from making a claim for disturbance. He might be bankrupt through no fault of his own.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, the intention was to restrain capricious eviction; but would anybody say that it was capricious eviction for a landlord to get rid of a tenant who was defaulting in payment? It was not a trivial Amendment. Could anyone imagine a condition more unpleasant than to be surrounded by tenants who were in a condition of bankruptcy? But, as the clause stood, unless the landlord was prepared to face a sweeping claim for compensation, he could not afford to evict, but would be forced to retain bankrupts as tenants. The noble Lord depended very much on the Court restraining action of this kind. All he could say was, he wished the Court existed now, and that its jurisdiction extended to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government.

THE EARL OF PEMBROKE

said, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had tried to argue something which the Prime Minister had declared to be unarguable.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

said, he could not see why a landlord should pay a fine because a tenant was unable to pay his rent.

LORD PENZANCE

said, if a breach of the statutory conditions was of a slight character, the reasonable conclusion was, that the tenants should not be evicted for it. To say, however, that a tenant ought to be evicted for breach of statutory conditions, and then that the landlord should give him compensation, seemed to be absurd on the face of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 (Limited administration for purposes of sale).

On Motion of the Earl of BELMORE, the following Amendment made:—In page 13, line 27, leave out ("may"), and insert ("shall.")

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 (Provision for determination of estate of immediate landlord).

LORD CLONCURRY

said, he observed that the noble and learned Earl on the Front Bench (Earl Cairns) had a Motion on the Paper to strike out the clause altogether. He (Lord Cloncurry) himself had two Amendments to it on the Paper. He would, however, withdraw the first, and would ask their Lordships' favourable consideration to the second. The clause provided that in the case of a tenancy from year to year, if the estate of the immediate landlord was determined during its continuance, then the next superior landlord should stand in the relation of immediate landlord to the tenant, and have the rights and be subject to the obligations of an immediate landlord. The Amendment he would move was to add at end of clause the words— ("Provided, that a superior landlord shall not be subject to any obligations in respect of any under-tenancy created without his express consent.")

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that the middleman occupied for the time being the position of the superior landlord, and the tenant was clearly entitled to the same benefits he would have had under the middleman, just as the tenants in a settled estate were entitled to expect that a succeeding life tenant would carry out the engagements of his predecessor.

EARL CAIRNS

said, that, so far as regarded settled estates, it was obvious that the tenant for life must represent the whole estate for the time being, and on his death his position as landlord ought to be carried on by the next in succession. If the clause were confined to that he should not have a word to say. But from communications he had received from various quarters, the question of middlemen was one of extreme importance in Ireland upon many estates, large and small, and in cases brought to his knowledge property to the extent of many thousands a-year was involved. Under some old leases land was let to middlemen at what was then supposed to be a fair rent, or at less than a fair rent where a fine had been paid. The middleman let to subtenants, and now hundreds of tenants were in possession, having no connection whatever with the owner who had made the lease to the middleman. The property had probably changed hands, and the purchasers bought it upon the footing that the lease would shortly terminate, and fully anticipated at the close of these leases, that they should be allowed to resume possession of their property. They had made arrangements on that supposition, and a number of leases would shortly fall in to the superior landlord. The effect of this clause would be that the head landlord, between whom and the under tenants there was no privity whatever, would be compelled to come into Court at the instigation of the tenant, who would claim to be tenant in perpetuity. Thus every arrangement which had been made would be nullified, and the loss to landlords would be incalculable. He hoped the Committee would be careful, therefore, before they adopted a clause which in this aspect seemed to be perfectly foreign to all the other provisions of the Bill. If this was to be the effect of the clause, he hoped their Lordships would adopt the Amendment he intended to propose.

THE EARL OF BELMORE

asked the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (the Lord Chancellor) whether, under the wording of the clause, if a tenant had possession from length of occupancy without paying any rent, against a middleman, the superior landlord would not be bound by the middleman's neglect? He had heard of such a case.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

replied, that such would not be the ease.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, he was not inclined to take part in that rather legal discussion; but he saw clearly enough that to strike out this clause would be a very serious injury to the Bill. Not only that, but the Amendment of the noble Lord as proposed would evidently sweep out of the purview of the Bill all the advantages which it was intended to confer upon a very considerable number of occupying tenants scattered all over Ireland. From the moment the Bill was passed, every occupying tenant would have under a middle landlord all the rights of any other occupier in Ireland. If this clause were struck out, the moment the middleman disappeared every one of these tenants would lose the rights conferred upon them by Parliament. That was a result which their Lordships would not wish to arise, as if an Irish proprietor thought fit to part with his land, and handed over his rights to another person, he must be prepared to abide by the results, unless the middle landlord had created occupying tenants contrary to his lease. But if, consistently with his lease, he had created those occupying tenants, it would be highly impolitic to deprive them of the rights which all occupying tenants would possess in Ireland. The probability was that upon the falling in of the lease the rents of the occupying tenants would be found to be extremely high. Probably those tenants would come to the Court and ask for a reduction; but a reduction would do no harm to the landlord; not the least, because the middle landlords were in the habit of obtaining rents, which the superior landlord would probably not think of asking. Not only that, but the reduced rent would be worth more to the landlord than the rent which he at present received from the middleman for a lease made possibly 100 years ago. Take, for instance, the case of Lord Portsmouth. Lord Portsmouth's income was very much increased by the falling in of old leases, although he reduced the rents which the occupying tenants had been paying to the middlemen.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

contended that it would be a piece of injustice to give a leaseholder perpetuity of tenure. He would refer their Lordships to the case of a man who, having bought 600 acres in the Landed Estates Court, found, on the expiration of the lease of a middleman, a sub-tenant who neither had ability to farm properly nor was able to pay a fair rent, but who yet would obtain by the Bill perpetuity or "durability" of tenure. It would be well for the Government to accept the Amendment, and thus remove the question of leases from this clause altogether. Unless the Government consented to make some considerable modification in the clause, the Opposition would have no alternative but to go to a division.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, that the remedy in such a case as that suggested by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) would be to fix a judicial rent for the tenant. On that being done, if the tenant could not pay what the Court deemed a proper rent he would have to go. He thought the clause, as it stood, afforded ample protection to the occupying tenant.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

thought that many hard cases would occur under the clause as it now stood.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

took the same view; but held that it would be a serious thing to exempt any considerable number of sub-tenants from the operation of the Bill. It should be distinctly declared whether the sub-tenants or middlemen, on the expiration of their leases, were to be regarded as present or future tenants under the Act.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, they would rank as present tenants.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

EARL CAIRNS

said, he wished to move Amendments to the clause. As it stood upon the Bill, it provided that— If in the case of any holding the estate of the immediate landlord for the time being is determined during the continuance of any tenancy from year to year, whether subject or not subject to statutory conditions, the next superior landlord for the time being shall, for the purposes of this Act, during the continuance of such tenancy, stand in the relation of immediate landlord to the tenant of the tenancy, and have the rights and be subject to the obligations of an immediate landlord. He moved that the words ("immediate") and ("for the time,") in page 13, lines 31 and 32, be omitted from the clause.

Amendments agreed to.

Moved, In page 13, line 32, after ("being") to insert ("a limited owner.")—(The Earl Cairns.)

On question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 133; Not Contents 65: Majority 68.

CONTENTS.
Beaufort, D.	Gough, V.
Buckingham and Chandos, D.	Hawarden, V. [Teller.]
	Hereford, V.
Manchester, D.	Hood, V.
Marlborough, D.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)
Norfolk, D.
Northumberland, D.	Melville, V.
Richmond, D.	Sidmouth, V.
Wellington, D.	Templetown, V.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Abinger, L.
	Annaly, L.
Abergavenny, M.	Ardilaun, L.
Exeter, M.	Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)
Hertford, M.	Aveland, L.
Salisbury, M.	Beaumont, L.
Winchester, M.	Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)
Annesley, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Bandon, E.
Bathurst, E.	Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)
Beauchamp, E.
Belmore, E.	Castlemaine, L.
Brownlow, E.	Chelmsford, L.
Cadogan, E.	Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)
Cairns, E.
Caledon, E.	Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)
Carnarvon, E.	Cloncurry, L.
Clonmell, E.	Colchester, L.
Coventry, E.	Colville of Culross, L.
Denbigh, E.	Crofton, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens-berry.)	De Freyne, L.
	de Ros, L.
	Dighy, L.
Eldon, E.	Dinevor, L.
Feversham, E.	Donington, L.
Fitzwilliam, E.	Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.
Fortescue, E.
Gainsborough, E.	Dunsany, L.
Haddington, E.	Ellenborough, L.
Hardwicke, E.	Elphinstone, L.
Jersey, E.	Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
Lanesborough, E.
Lathom, E. [Teller.]	Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)
Leven and Melville, E.
Lovelace, E.	Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)
Lucan, E.
Mansfield, E.	Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
Mar and Kellie, E.
Morton, E.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Heytesbury, L.
Nelson, E.	Houghton, L.
Pembroke and Mont-	Inchiquin, L.
gomery, E.	Kenlis, L. (M. Seadfort.)
Powis, E.
Redesdale, E.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)
Romney, E.
Rosse, E.	Lyveden, L.
Stanhope, E.	Massy, L.
Strathmore and Kinghorn.)	Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)
Suffolk and Berkshire, E.	Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)
Waldegrave, E.	Northwick, L.
Zetland, E.	Norton, L.
	O'Neill, L.
Cranbrook, V.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Doneraile, V.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)	Stanley of Alderley, L.
	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Poltimore, L.
Raglan, L.	Strathspey, L. (E. Scafield.)
Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
	Talbot do Malahide, L.
Rayleigh, L.	Templemore, L.
Rodney, L.	Tredegar, L.
Sackville, L.	Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)
Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
	Ventry, L.
Saltoun, L.	Walsingham, L.
Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)	Wentworth, L.
	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
	Windsor, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Solborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Emly, L.
	Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)
	Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)
Devonshire, D.	Granard, L. (E. Granard.)
Aileshury, M.	Greville, L.
Northampton, M.	Hatherton, L.
	Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Airlie, E.
Granville, E.	Lawrence, L.
Kimberley, E.	Leigh, L.
Morley, E.	Methuen, L.
Northbrook, E.	Monck, L. (V. Monck.)
Spencer, E.	Monson, L. [Teller.]
Sydney, E.	Monteagle of Brandon,
Canterbury, V.	Mostyn, L.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)	Mount Temple, L.
	O'Hagan, L.
Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Powerscourt, V.	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Exeter, L. Bp.	Ribblesdale, L.
	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Aberdare, L.
Ampthill, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Belper, L.	Saye and Sele, L.
Blachford, L.	Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]	Skene, L. (E. Fife.)
	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Braye, L.
Breadalbane, L.[E. Breadalbane.)	Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Calthorpe, L.	Stafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Carlingford, L.
Carrington, L.	Sudeley, L.
Churchill, L.	Suffield, L.
Clermont, L.	Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
	Thurlow, L.
Crewe, L.	Wenlock, L.
Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)	Wolverton, L.
	Wrottesley, L.

Resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 (Letting for labourers' cottages not to be within the restrictions of Act).

On the Motion of the Earl of LIMERICK, the following Amendments made:—"In page 14, line 6, after ("may") insert ("after service of the prescribed notice upon the landlord "); and in line 8, after ("land") insert— ("In a situation to be approved by the landlord, or failing such approval to be determined by the court.")

THE EARL OF LIMERICK

moved to leave out from ("land") in line 13 to ("acres") in line 20, and insert— ("Any portion of any holding so let does not exceed half an acre in each case, and that the total number of such lettings of portions of a holding does not exceed one for every twenty-five acres of tillage land contained in the holding.") His desire was to put the Bill back in its original shape as it passed through the Committee in "another place." As it now stood, it would be possible for anyone with a holding of four or five acres to establish another cottage; but as it passed the Committee of the other House, the holding must be of 25 acres, or another cottage could not be erected. He desired to restore these words, and to say that a cottage should only be erected where there were 25 acres of arable land in the holding. As the Bill stood, anyone could erect a cottage upon a holding up to 25 acres. If it consisted of 26 acres, two cottages might be erected, and if the holding had 51 acres three cottages might be established, and so on in proportion. It would be a dangerous thing to increase to such an extent the power of building cottages, and he would only allow one when the holding was actually one of 25 acres of arable land, because unless that were the limit constant occupation for the inmates could not be found.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

considered the Amendment to be a reasonable one, and hoped it would be accepted by the Government.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, there seemed to be a sufficient reason why a hard-and-fast line should not be drawn at 25 acres, because a cottage might be required when the holding was only 24½ acres. It was, therefore, thought better not to draw an absolute line, but to leave power to put up a cottage, although the holding might be below 25 acres, of course under the sanction of the Court, without which in no case could it be done. There was also this positive condition—that the cottage must be required for the purposes of the holding.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said, that if a man held 24½ acres of arable land upon his holding, he could easily till half an acre more to bring it up to the 25 acres which would entitle him to ask for another cottage. He supported the Amendment, because it was certain that an extra cottage was not required on the small holdings. This was really the sort of sub-division that they wanted to guard against.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

supported the Amendment.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

pointed out that their object was to encourage the building of cottages where they were needed. He did not think the tenants would desire to build much under the restrictions of the clause. If there were no such restrictions, no doubt they could build and sub-let; but the Courts would have to decide whether the proposal was necessary and reasonable or not. He failed to see any danger, because the clause was fully guarded.

THE EARL OF LIMERICK

said, the great danger would arise in the case of smaller farms. The tenant would put up a house for the use of some member of his family, calling him a labourer.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, in that case it would not be necessary for the holding.

Amendment agreed to; words substituted accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 (Power of court, on application for the determination of a judicial rent, to impose conditions as to labourers' cottages).

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

moved, in page 14, line 26, to leave out ("may, if it thinks fit"), and insert ("shall") The object of the Amendment was to make the action of the Court compulsory instead of optional.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, it was impossible to accept the Amendment, as it would bind the Court down by imperative rules.

Amendment negatived.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in moving, as an Amendment, at end of clause, to add— Provided that such rent shall not be more than five shillings in excess of the amount due upon the holding in proportion to the rent of the entire holding paid by the tenant to the landlord, exclusive of the cost of any buildings erected by the tenant for the sub-tenant. said, that whilst the tenants were paying 10s. or 15s. to the landlord for the land of these holdings, yet the sub-tenants were frequently paying to them as much as £8, and even £12. The worst dwellings in Ireland were those which were sub-let by farmers; many of them were not fit for habitation, yet the landlords got the discredit of them. The Lord Privy Seal would hardly repeat what had been said in "another place," that labourers had no votes; and the accepting of this Proviso would do a great deal towards relieving the labourers, and avoiding more time being taken up next Session on their behalf through the neglect of them by the Government on the present occasion.

LORD CARLINGFORD

opposed the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18 (Rules as to determination of tenancy).

The EARL OF DUNRAVEN

moved, in page 15, sub-section (3), line 22, to leave out ("present,") and insert ("future.") As the sub-section stood, it read as follows:— Where a present tenancy in a holding is purchased by the landlord from the tenant in exercise of his right of pre-emption under this Act, and not on the application or by the wish of the tenant, or as a bidder in the open market, then if the landlord within fifteen years from the passing of this Act re-lets the same holding to another tenant, the same shall be subject from and after the time when it has been so re-let, to all the provisions of this Act, which are applicable to present tenancies.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, he could not accept the Amendment, as it would defeat the Government's purpose in making a period of 15 years' rest after the Bill passed. The object of the clause was to guard against the risk of the powers of the landlord being exercised to a large extent during the first years of the operation of the Act for the purpose of converting present into future tenancies on a larger scale, by which the policy of the measure might be thwarted, and its effect impaired.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

supported the Amendment, which was similar to one of which he had himself given Notice, and said he could not see the force of the objection taken to it on behalf of the Government.

EARL CAIRNS

was understood to say that it seemed to be presumed that the landlord's right of pre-emption could always be exercised against the will of the tenant. That was not necessarily so. The effect of the clause would be that if the landlord exercised his right of pre-emption he must retain the land; otherwise, if he re-let it within 15 years he would create a perpetuity tenant.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, he could not let that opportunity pass without entering his solemn protest against the policy of the clause. He believed it to be wholly wrong, and calculated to prove ruinous to the peace of Ireland. The clause was proposed on the principle of "anything for a quiet life." It was proposed in order to prevent the landlord from doing with his property for a period of 15 years that which it was admitted he might do with perfect reason, and with advantage to the community—and all because it would be displeasing to the Land League. That was the long and the short of this policy. It was a thoroughly false policy with regard to Ireland; and it was tending more and more to the demoralization of public opinion, by giving to such a course the sanction of the Government. Let the Government give to the tenants of Ireland everything it thought was just, and take from the landlords every power it thought they had abused. Let them do what they liked in that matter; but, when they had given a residuum of power to the landlord, leave them to the free exercise of that. Do not let them teach the tenantry of Ireland that nothing was to be done for 15 years, lest they should agitate against it. The policy of the Government was entirely wrong, and might produce serious delay to the progress of the agriculture of the country; for, if a landlord wished to consolidate farms, he might not be able to keep them on his hands for 15 years. The sub-section was a piece of pure cowardice, made out of pure fear of the Land League, and if there were a division he should vote against it.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had taken advantage of a particularly small matter to denounce the Bill.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

No; the clause.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

My noble Friend takes advantage of the opportunity afforded by a small clause of the Bill to say that our policy is dictated by cowardice.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

Only this clause.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

No, no, no!

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

Yes, yes, yes! It arose from his noble Friend not understanding the nature of the clause.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

The object in the sub-section was not to prevent agitation caused by the tenants, but to prevent agitation caused by the landlords. The Government were afraid that the landlords might take advantage of this power of pre-emption, to adopt the course of destroying present tenancies and convert them into future tenancies on a large scale. If that were done by landlords, it would produce an agitation that it was expedient to prevent; and they, therefore, thought it right to insert the provision in the Bill. As to the statement that the Government were actuated by any fear of the Land League, there was not the slightest ground for it.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

There is no danger of an agitation being commenced by the landlords. I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a division.

LORD EMLY

said, he hoped the Government would re-consider their decision on this matter. There would be comparatively few landlords who would be able to exercise this right of preemption, so that the Government were afraid of an imaginary difficulty.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, the cowardice imputed to the Government was fear of responsibility; for it was not certain that, 15 years hence, the class who raised the agitation now would not raise an agitation then. It was, therefore, simply deferring it to a time when other persons would have to cope with it; because, even if a Liberal Government were in power, it in all probability would not be constituted as now, or hold the same views. He could not help thinking there was some other hidden policy, which the Government would not confess, that was at the bottom of these mysterious provisions. If so, he would exhort them to unbosom themselves, and state the nature of the evil that might follow landlords buying up the tenancies on their estates. What agitation could the landlord produce by buying up his own property, and letting it to somebody else? If they anticipated that such an agitation would be produced, and that it would be dangerous to the peace of Ireland, the Government had better put a bold face on it and abolish landlords altogether. The subject was of great importance, and there was no ground for believing that future tenancies would be an evil to Ireland 15 years hence.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, they were not going to waste the time of the Committee by entering into any disquisitions as to their motives and moral conduct, as the noble Marquess seemed to wish. The noble Marquess was, happily; not Grand Inquisitor; but if he were, and if he put the Members of the Government on the rack, they could discover no other motives for their conduct than those they had already avowed to the Committee.

LORD DENMAN

thought the clause contained a most extraordinary provision, and supported the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to; word substituted accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19 (Provision as to existing leases).

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE,

in rising to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the following words:— Provided that at the expiration of such existing leases the lessees shall be deemed to be tenants of present ordinary tenancies, from year to year, at the rents and subject to the conditions of their leases respectively, so far as such conditions are applicable to tenancies from year to year, said, that, in moving the Amendment, he certainly did not wish to go behind the principle to which their Lordships were committed by the second reading of the Bill. When they agreed to the second reading, they accepted the principle that contract was not in future to regulate the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland; but he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) ventured to submit to the Committee that there was a point beyond which they ought not to go or carry this crusade against contract. The words he proposed to omit did go beyond that point. Those words, it must be remembered, formed no part of the original Bill as introduced by the Government. The Prime Minister said that it was not his intention to make what he called a "holocaust of freedom of contract," and he added that they thought it no part of their duty to interfere with current leases. But some time after, for some reason or other not yet explained, Her Majesty's Government changed their minds, and they changed their minds with a vengeance, for they proposed that tenants, at the end of existing leases, should be ordinary tenants from year to year. What was the effect of that proposal? That landlord and tenant make a contract—a perfectly fair and honourable engagement on both sides; the landlord parts with his holding for the term of years at a reasonable rent; the tenant has submitted to the covenants, one being that at the expiration of the lease the landlord should resume the holding. But what the Proviso of the Government proposed was what neither party ever contemplated, for the clause imported into the contract the term, that, over and above the 31 years or longer period of the lease, the tenant, at the end of that period, should have another lease for 15 years, renewable for ever, and not only that, but that he should have the further privilege of going to the Court, and getting his rent revised, and possibly reduced. Suppose during the 31 years of the lease the value of agricultural produce had become affected by American competition or otherwise, the tenant might go into Court, in spite of his lease, and have his rent revised, and the Court would compel the landlord to continue him in possession at the reduced rent, though the landlord might have other uses to which he would wish to put his land. His Amendment proposed to restore the Bill to its original shape. He wished particularly to observe that there were two descriptions of leases which would not be touched by it—one, the Ulster leases, with regard to which particular precautions had been taken in another part of the clause; and the other, the leases imposed by the landlord on the tenant under threat of eviction—leases considered by the Court unreasonable and unfair. The only leases touched by his Amend- ment were bonâ fide leases, which there was no reason to override. For years past it had been the reproach of the Irish landlords that they did not give security to their tenants. From the time of the Devon Commission that complaint had been made. The Devon Commissioners warned the landlords of the impolicy of refusing to the tenants the security of properly framed leases; and now those landlords who had accepted that warning and had granted these leases were to find that the State interposed in order to tear them up. And, just as the policy of the Devon Commissioners had been in favour of leases, so the policy of the Act of 1870 had been in favour of them. At the time of the passing of that Act, 11 years ago, it was enacted that the landlord, by granting a 31 years' lease, might exclude the tenant from compensation under the other clauses of the Bill; and now what Her Majesty's Government proposed was to override leases entered into under those circumstances. A statement was made at that time by Sir Roundell Palmer, which he would like to read. Sir Roundell Palmer, on April 4, 1870, said— Surely the necessity of interfering with existing contracts cannot possibly apply to holdings above a certain value, nor to bonâ fide leases of definite duration. As to those leases, it has been truly said that the men who take them understand perfectly well that they take them for a definite term, and that they are to give up their holdings at the end of that term; and they have no right afterwards to say they have made arrangements, or done anything whatever, except in view of that well-understood part of their contract. I speak of bonâ fide leases, because I have not forgotten what was said the other night by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, and which deserves our attention—namely, that if you except everything that looks like a lease, you might have a nominal lease made for a year or so, merely to get out of the operation of the Bill. Now, I think you might, perhaps, take the limit of seven years, though I would not bind myself to that. Seven years would, at all events, be a bonâ fide and not a merely colourable lease; and I do not see why, if a farmer enters into a lease for seven years, or for any longer period, you are to alter his contract, and to say that after the expiration of the seven years it shall be continued as a lease from year to year, which is a totally different thing."—[3 Hansard, cc. 1213–14.] But the Government were now proposing that the tenant should be continued as a tenant from year to year at the end of a lease, not of seven, but of 31 years, or a longer term. There was only one argument in favour of that proposal, and it was rather a strange one—namely, that in Ireland a lease was not a lease, but an agreement between the parties fixing the rent for a particular period. That was not a description which could be applied to all Ireland. But if, in some parts of Ireland, leases were habitually granted on that understanding, he would suggest that those cases should be provided for by special and exceptional legislation. They had been told that Her Majesty's Government looked forward to a time when they should revert to freedom of contract, and when a wholesomer state of things than the Bill introduced would prevail. But how were they to get into that wholesomer state of things if, one after another, they closed up every avenue to freedom of contract? They were teaching a most mischievous lesson to the people of Ireland, when they were told that men who were perfectly able to enter into contracts, and who had done so at the express invitation of the Legislature, were to have the contracts they had entered into torn up by the State. This provision would strike a great blow at public confidence if it was necessary to put an end to free contract in Ireland. Let them do so; but let them, at least, bury it decently, and not inflict upon its remains the wanton affront involved in this most mischievous clause. He begged, in conclusion, to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Moved, In page 16, line 9, to leave out from("Provided that") to ("on") in line 14.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

LORD GREVILLE

said, that the provision which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) proposed to amend did not interfere with any lease whatever; but only said when the lease came to an end that the tenant should be in the same position as other tenants under the Bill. The Amendment would affect tenants in the same position as their neighbours. From his own experience, he could say that what was in the mind of the Irish tenant when he took a lease was, that during a particular period he was to pay a certain rent. It would be a grievance and an encouragement to agitation to exclude so considerable a class as the leaseholders from the benefits of the Bill.

EARL STANHOPE

said, a lease was either a contract entered into voluntarily between two parties, or it was not. His own experience as the owner of a small Irish property was that the tenants, as a rule, were well able to take care of themselves, and would never take a lease without informing themselves fully of the circumstances. If a lease was to be no longer a lease, as proposed under this clause, then this principle might be further extended, and apply to house property in London. It would be very agreeable to many householders in their Lordships' House to be told that at the expiration of their leases they might continue on as yearly tenants, paying the same rent. He thought the Amendment most reasonable, and had heard no argument whatever against it; and he should, therefore, certainly support it.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, the noble Marquess who had moved the Amendment (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had fixed his eyes and thoughts simply on the legal aspects of the case; and it did not require much ingenuity or the abilities of his noble Friend to support the Amendment on such purely legal grounds. What would have become of Ireland if it had been the habit of landlords to act on their right to get rid of their yearly tenants upon six months' notices; or if they had made use of the legal power they possessed before 1870, and had treated their tenants' improvements as their own? It had only been because these legal conditions had not been observed, but on the contrary, habitually neglected and left in abeyance, that Ireland had got on at all for generations past. The Bill, in that respect, attempted to deal, not with the mere legal, but with the real conditions of tenure in Ireland, with conditions which were practically observed upon all the best and happiest estates in Ireland. Was the case of a lease to be absolutely distinguished from the treatment which the Bill applied to all other forms of tenure? No doubt, they were importing new terms into Irish tenure; but they thought they were doing so on sufficient grounds. Was there something so sacred and magical about a lease that that which they were doing in the case of minor tenancies was not to be thought of in the case of leases? The Government proposal was, that in the case of an occupying tenant who, after having had a lease, possessed it no longer, the same protection should be extended to him as was given to other occupying tenants. If the Government did not make such a provision, a large class of occupying tenants would be excepted from the protection of the Bill, for they would be debarred from making use of the tribunal constituted for settling rent. Besides, it was just when a lease expired that the burning question of rent was most likely to arise, and that was a strong reason for not refusing protection to the leaseholders. He contended that it would not be wise to exclude those who had held leases from the benefit of the Bill. Whatever might be the strict legal effect of a lease in Ireland, in 99 cases out of 100, it was never intended that relations between the parties should end with the termination of the lease, but really that the parties should continue together upon much the same terms as before.

EARL FORTESCUE

doubted whether the Government saw anything sacred in any contract, seeing that they were perpetually keeping the whole of the tenantry of Ireland in swaddling clothes. The Government seemed to be quite uneasy at the notion that this tribunal would not have enough to do, and thought they should have some additional work given them for the satisfaction, they said, of both tenant and landlord. It appeared to him, however, that the leaseholders were able to guard their own interests without the intervention of the Court. And that, apparently, had been the original opinion of the Government also; for the present proposal, which it was now sought to amend, was not in the original draft of the Bill. It was not till some time after what was said to be the last of the 22 editions of the Bill before it was presented to Parliament that this unhappy afterthought of the Government appeared. It was suggested by a desire to conciliate the Land League, the leaders of which body had already told them plainly that the Bill would not satisfy them, and that they looked forward to obtaining "Ireland for the Irish," and to the ultimate ejectment of all landlords.

LORD HOUGHTON

thought that to place landlords and tenants who had teen parties to leases under totally different conditions from other landlords and tenants would be contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill. Besides, the measure would not prevent the renewal of leases. If the principle of freedom of contract was to be violated at all, the clause was one with which there was less reason to find fault on the grounds of political economy than any other in the Bill. It seemed to him that it rigidly upheld present contracts with regard to leases.

LORD CLONCURRY

pointed out that in the important district formerly known as the Pale estates were managed exclusively on the English principle. If the clause were passed as it stood, it would be impossible for any landlord to take possession of his own property in order to set an example which was so much needed of proper farming and good management. He, therefore, hoped the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would press his Amendment to a division.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

sincerely hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment. He admitted that the rights of individuals were interfered with by the clause; but the whole of the Bill interfered with individual rights, and he could not see that there was any more hardship in this than in a great many other cases. The result of the Amendment would be that, with very few exceptions, all tenants holding under leases, at the expiration of the lease, would be outside the Bill altogether; and if the Bill were to give any satisfaction whatever, as they hoped it might, there was no doubt whatever that the Amendment proposed would give a great deal of dissatisfaction to a considerable number of the most intelligent men in the country, and he could not see why they should make those dissatisfied who would otherwise be ranged on the side of law and order. Their Lordships had already excepted from the provisions of the Bill estates managed on what was called the English system, although nobody seemed to be able to define what that meant. They had also excepted the case where landlords had bought up the tenant right, and now they were asked to make another exception. He confessed he could not understand why the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) opposed the Amendment to exclude from the operation of the Bill tenancies of over £ 100, and now sup- ported the present one. If their Lordships desired to play into the hands of unscrupulous persons, who wished to carry on agitation, they could not do better than go on making these exceptions in the Bill.

LORD HARLECH

thought that if anybody was more capable than another of taking care of himself it was the intelligent leaseholder, who formed the most intellectual body of the farmers of Ireland. Every encouragement had been given by the Act of 1870 to give leases, and now the House was asked to break those leases.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

felt almost insuperable objections to the Legislature breaking contracts of the most formal character. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal had stated that tenants in Ireland took leases with no other object than to prevent an increment of rent during the continuance of the lease, and that they had no intention of going out at the expiration of the term. That, he believed, was true with regard to a large class of small tenants; but he would observe that there was nothing in the Amendment to prevent renewing the lease, and he (the Duke of Argyll) believed there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the landlord and tenant going into Court at the end of the lease. Though there might be many cases in which small farmers took their farms on lease as a safeguard against increment of rent, there were many cases in which farms were taken in Ireland under exactly the same circumstances as in England, and there were large farmers who had taken their farms on condition that they should either leave them at the end of the lease or retake them. He knew of a case in which a family let on lease a farm, which they regarded as their home, to go abroad for health, and when their health was restored they would come back to enter their home again at the end of the lease, the tenant having taken it on the full understanding that he must leave it at the end of the lease. But under this Act that lease would be broken, and the tenant could remain on the farm. He called that a great hardship. He did not know that he should have insuperable objections to give the Court power to renew all leases in cases where the tenants had reasonable expectations that they would be allowed to remain in pos- session of the holdings; but to say that all leases indiscriminately should be broken was surely a most violent proposition. Some years ago he had been astonished at a proposal that was made that at the end of an Ulster lease the tenant right should survive; but now many noble Lords seemed to think that a tenant should have the enjoyment of the tenant right at the end of his lease, it having been his reasonable expectation that he would have it. Well, he did not know that he would have an insuperable objection to that; but he did most strongly object to the indiscriminate violation of leases proposed by the Government. It was no part of the Bill when it was introduced to the House of Commons, and he could not conceive why it should exist. He cordially supported the Amendment.

LORD EMLY

suggested that the Government should except from the operation of the clause cases in which the landlord wished to resume the farm for his own occupation. He hoped, however, that the Government would not stultify themselves by adopting the Amendment.

EARL CAIRNS

observed, that it was said that if they accepted the Amendment they would cause great dissatisfaction to the occupying tenants. But the question was, whether they ought to give cause for dissatisfaction to the rightful owner, or to the person who was the occupying tenant? It would be quite impossible to satisfy both the landlord and the tenant, one of whom could alone be the occupier of the farm. But who, he asked, would have the better right to its occupation? Surely the landlord to whom it belonged. In reference to the point, he had received a letter from a correspondent, showing how he had let a farm for a certain period with the intention of handing it over to his son at the end of the lease. With this in view, he had trained his son to agricultural pursuits; but now that the Land Bill had been introduced, he feared his object would be frustrated, for by its provisions the present lessee would, at the expiration of his term, become nominally a yearly tenant, but virtually a tenant for a minimum period of 15 years more.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

, in reply to the statement of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) that a man at the end of his lease could go to the Court, said, that only a present tenant could go to the Court under the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

was of opinion that their Lordships might safely accept the Amendment, and reject the proposals of the Government, for the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had said, in the House of Commons, that he could not exclude from his consideration that this question did not rest with the Commons alone, but that there was another House which was constitutionally entitled to give its independent vote on the provisions of the Bill; and he felt that, if having brought it in as one measure, the Commons sent it up to the Lords as another, most justly might the Lords say -"We are dealing with a set of men who do not know their own minds, and we refuse to bow to their authority."

On question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause?" Their Lordships divided— Contents 59; Not-Contents 142: Majority 83.

CONTENTS
Selborne, L. (L. Chancellar.)	Emly, L.
	Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)
	Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)
Devonshire, D.
	Granard, L. (E. Granard.)
Camperdown, E.
Durham, E.	Greville, L.
Kimberley, E.	Houghton, L.
Morley, E.	Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Northbrook, E.
Spencer, E.	Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
Canterbury, V.	Lawrence, L.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)	Leigh, L.
	Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)
Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)
	Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)
Torrington, V.	Lyttelton, L.
	Methuen, L.
Exeter, L. Bp.	Monck, L. (V. Monck.)
	Moncreiff, L.
Aberdare, L.	Monson, L. [Teller.]
Ampthill, L.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Boyle, L, (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]
	Mostyn, L.
Braye, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Calthorpe, L.	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Camoys, L.
Carlingford, L.	Ribblesdale, L.
Carrington, L.	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
	Sandhurst, L.
Dacre, L.	Saye and Sele, L.
Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)	Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)
	Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)	Waveney, L.
	Wolverton, L.
Sudeley, L.	Wrottesley, L.
Thurlow, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Buckingham and Chandos, D.	Cranbrook, V.
	Doneraile, V
Marlborough, D.	Gough, V.
Norfolk, D.	Hawarden, V.
Northumberland, D.	Hill, V.
Portland, D.	Hood, V.
Richmond, D.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)
Wellington, D.
	Lifford, V.
	Melville, V.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Templetown, V.
Abergavenny, M.
Hertford, M.	St. Albana, L. Bp.
Lansdowne, M. [Teller.]
Salisbury, M.	Abinger, L.
Winchester, M.	Arundell of Wardour, L.
Amherst, E.	Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)
Annesley, E.	Aveland, L.
Bandon, E.	Botreaux, L. (E. Loudown.)
Bathurst, E.
Beauchamp, E.	Brabourne, L.
Belmore, E.	Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)
Bradford, E.
Cairns, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Carnarvon, E.
Clonmell, E.	Castlemaine, L.
Coventry, E.	Chelmsford, L.
Dartrey, E.	Clinton, L.
Denbigh, E.	Cloncurry, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Bucclench and Queens berry.)	Colchester, L.
	Colville of Culross, L.
	Cottesloe, L.
Eldon, E.	Crofton, L.
Ellesmere, E.	De Freyne, L.
Fortescue, E.	Denman, L,
Gainsborough, E.	de Ros, L.
Haddington, E.	Digby, L.
Harewood, E.	Dinevor, L.
Ilchester, E.	Donington, L.
Jersey, E.	Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.
Lanesborough, E.
Lathom, E. [Teller.]	Dunsany, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Ellenborough, L.
Lovelace, E.	Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
Lucan, E.
Macclesfield, E.	Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)
Manvers, E.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Harlech, L.
Morton, E.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Heytesbury, L.
Nelson, E.	Hylton, L.
Onslow, E.	Inchiquin, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E.	Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)
Powis, E.	Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)
Ravensworth, E.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Redesdale, E.	Leconfield, L.
Rosse, E.	Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)
Sandwich, E.
Stanhope, E.	Lyveden, L.
Verulam, E.	Manners, L.
Waldegrave, E.	Massy, L.
Winton, E. [E. Eglintoun.)	Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)	Stanley of Alderley, L.
	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Northwick, L.
Norton, L.	Strathspey, L (E, Seafield.)
Oranmore and Browne, L.
	Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Plunket, L.
Poltimore, L.	Talbot de Malahide, L.
Raglan, L.	Templemore, L.
Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)	Tollemache, L.
	Trevor, L.
Rayleigh, L.	Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)
Rowton, L.
Sackville, L.	Ventry, L.
Saltoun, L.	Vernon, L.
Scarsdale, L.	Walsingham, L.
Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)	Wentworth, L.
	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
	Wimborne, L.
Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)	Windsor, L.
	Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative.

EARL CAIRNS

, in moving the omission, in page 16, of lines 24 to 36 inclusive, which provided for the cancellation of leases forced upon the tenants since the Act of 1870 by threat of eviction or undue influence on the part of the landlord, said, he thought the insertion of those words was one of the instances in which the Government did not seem to know their own minds, for it was a change that was outside the original Bill, and might be well described as an excrescence on it. What the clause proposed to do was to give a Court of three Judges power to cancel all leases made since 1870. In law there was no power in a Court so great and transcendent as that of cancelling contracts executed between the parties. It was a power exercised in but rare cases, always with the greatest caution, and on certain well-known principles. He should like to know what were the facts on which a clause of this kind was justified. That part of the clause which referred to terms of lease "unreasonable or unfair to the tenant, having regard to the provisions of the Act of 1870," he did not understand. Nor could he understand the effect of the words "undue influence," which seemed to be used in a sense different from that which was usually attached to them in law; and he should, therefore, like to hear the Government inform them of the facts which justified the clause, which seemed to suppose that the leases which had been granted since 1870 contained unreasonable terms, and that they were obtained from the tenant by undue influence. What were the facts which justified a. statement of that kind? He himself was not-aware of any. He looked to the clause to see what were the grounds on which executed leases should be cancelled. He found that the Court was to be satisfied that the terms of the lease were unreasonable or unfair to the tenant, having regard to the provisions of the Act of 1870. He looked to the Act of 1870, and he found that it authorized certain leases to be made on certain terms. If those terms were complied with the leases were valid. If they were not complied with the leases were invalid, and nothing more need be said about them. They did not require to be put aside. Therefore, he hoped the Government would tell them what was the meaning of the terms he had referred to—"that the lease contains terms which are unreasonable," &c. The second term was one well known to the law; but what was the meaning of a lease entered into under threat of eviction? The Act said that the landlord might evict on paying the cost of eviction; therefore he had the right to evict; and he might threaten to do that which he had the legal right to do. He could not understand that there was any legal or moral wrong to be redressed in a lease made under this Act. If a Court cancelled an ordinary lease, it would say that the tenant must restore possession of the land; but in this case the tenant was to continue to occupy the land for a term of 15 years, which might be indefinitely extended. The Prime Minister, in 1870, said that the Act of that year was framed upon the principle that from the moment it passed every Irishman must be absolutely responsible for every contract into which he entered. Now, he was told that if he had taken a lease at a certain rent the Court would cancel it, and the same Court would give him continuity or perpetuity of tenure at a revised rent. That was a proposition beyond anything ever presented to Parliament. What facts were there to justify such legislation? What proof was there that the landlords had in one or in 100 instances been guilty of conduct which required such legislation-legislation which was absolutely without precedent? If there were no such facts, as he believed there were none, he hoped the Committee would not sanction the proposal of the Government.

Moved, In page 16, to leave out lines 24 to 36.—(The Earl Cairns.)

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, the power to which the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) had objected was a temporary power proposed to be given for six months to the Land Commission, on the belief of the Government that there had been extraordinary and exceptional transactions of the kind referred to during the last 10 years in Ireland. Unless the Government were greatly mistaken, there was reason to believe that in certain cases leases, such as they had no conception of in this country, had been forced upon tenants by the threat of eviction—leases violating the whole spirit of the Land Act, and absolutely contrary to the interests and wishes of the tenants. That was the foundation of the portion of the clause which it was proposed to omit. The lease provided by the Land Act of 1870 as an alternative for the other provisions of the Act was to be a lease of 31 years' duration, and it was to leave to the tenant, at the end of the term, a claim for permanent improvements such as buildings and reclamations; but the leases which had been forced on tenants had compelled them to abandon that right to the value of their improvements which had been secured to them. It must be remembered that the conditions which alone would make the sub-section applicable were, that it should be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the tenant had accepted a lease of the character he had described, and that he had been compelled and coerced into accepting it under the threat of eviction; and it was on the supposition of such facts being proved to the Court that it had been decided to give to the Government this exceptional power. Undoubtedly, there was a large body of evidence to the effect that this kind of thing had been going on in Ireland, and it was the kind of evidence on which there was reason to rely. ["Oh, oh!"] He said that advisedly. The evidence of a man bringing forward his own grievance must be received with suspicion; but there was a large body of evidence before the Land Commissioners given by men of experience who knew what had been going on in their own neighbourhoods. To say that no atten- tion whatever should be paid to such evidence seemed to him absurd. He would remind the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) that there were produced before the Commission over which the noble Duke had himself presided five separate leases which had been forced upon one tenant, and in each case with an increase of rent, the leases being of terms of seven, two, one, six, and 21 years, and the last one being after the passing of the Act of 1870. These leases could not be called free contracts between man and man, because they were forced on the tenant by threat of eviction. A witness before the Bessborough Commission described the leases enforced on his brother tenants. The leases, he said, were compulsory; there was a memorandum sent by the agent, stating that if they did not accept the leases their rents would be raised; the rents were raised, at the same time the landlord claimed all existing improvements, and, at the expiration of the lease, they were denied the right given by the Act of 1870 to claim for improvements made during their term. These facts would prove that this provision had not been wantonly proposed by the Government. The cases they wished to interfere with were those which were totally contrary to every notion of anything like free contract; indeed, to call them so was a farce; and he contended that they justified, for a limited time, the intervention of the Court. The Government would abide by the proposal which they had made.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

said, there were great objections to this part of the clause. He regretted that the proposal should have been made; but as it involved a serious charge against the landlords, and as the matter was one to which the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal attached some importance, he thought it might be questionable prudence on the part of the landlords if they receded from the challenge and refused to submit these leases to the scrutiny of the Court. In order that the landlords might not have even the appearance of refusing to submit to the sort of investigation the clause contemplated, he should not vote against the Government.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

said, his impression was that this provision of the clause would be found exceedingly bene- ficial to the landlords. He had about 20 tenants holding under leases made since 1870, and all complained that the leases had been forced on them. There was not the smallest ground for that complaint; and, for his own part, he welcomed the proposed investigation. But some cases might have occurred which were objectionable to the Act of 1870. He would not vote for the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that the generous and chivalrous spirit in which the two noble Lords who had last spoken proposed to submit to the judgment of the Court was conclusive as far as they were concerned; but there were other landlords in Ireland who might not be so ready to submit to a trial without the faintest trace of evidence being adduced to establish a primâ facie case against them. For the smallest accusation against the meanest person, some primâ facie evidence sufficient to satisfy a Grand Jury must be brought forward, and the documents upon which the accusation rested must be produced. But in both these respects Her Majesty's Government were wanting in making out their case. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal had said that there was conclusive evidence on the subject in many leases. Well, he would like to have some of the leases of which mention had been made, with the terms therein described as unreasonable and unfair, produced. The noble Lord mentioned a case brought before the Richmond Commission of a 21 years' lease made since the Act of 1870, in which very hard terms were imposed; but the only proof given was that the rent was raised. Last night the House had heard nothing but praises of those who proposed to raise their rents.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, the rent had been raised five times over within a few years in the case he had mentioned.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, it must be remembered that the phrase "threat of eviction" was a very hollow one. It constantly happened that a man said to a tenant—"I wish that this holding should be held under lease. If you are willing to take a lease of years, I shall be delighted to go on with you. But if you are not willing, somebody else will be." It was the ordinary right of the landlord to decide the kind of tenure under which, the land should be held. If the Government intended to attach this novel and totally unheard of condition to leases contracted after 1870, they ought not to have included within that Act provisions that greatly encouraged the making of leases; they ought to have warned the landlords of the danger they ran in contracting instruments hitherto regarded as sacred by the law. This was only another instance of utter disregard of all sanctity of contract, and of all rights belonging to the landlord, and of how the Government rushed in directly anybody suggested that it was the means of satisfying the tenant class in Ireland.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

, in objecting to the Amendment, said, it appeared to him that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had forgotten that in the evidence before the Bessborough Commission it had been stated that, in some parts of the South of Ireland, considerable pressure had been put upon tenants to contract themselves out of the Act of 1870, in a manner which could not, without inquiry, be presumed to have been, in all cases, fair and reasonable. That being so, he should have thought that his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns) and the noble Marquess would have said that it was not within the spirit or intention of the Act of 1870 to encourage that class of transactions. There certainly was evidence enough to justify an inquiry whether these things had occurred or not. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) and the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven), on whose estates it was most improbable that anything of the kind had taken, place, said that it was for the public interest that, if there were such transactions, the Court should inquire into and decide against them. If the Court was of opinion that there was no improper pressure the leases would remain; if the Court should decide otherwise, he owned it would not be in accordance with his ideas of equity that the leases should remain. But the worst thing that could happen was that that House should say there should be no such inquiry.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, that after the speech of the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor), who had declared that there was a primâ facie case showing that tenants, especially small ones, had been coerced, he should be unwilling to refuse to give this juris- diction to the Court. He felt, however, that the allegations in 99 cases out of 100 were absolutely false. Yesterday he met an agent well-known in the North and South of Ireland, and he asked him whether such cases had occurred. The agent said that he knew of none himself, but he had heard of one. He (the Duke of Argyll) believed the result of an investigation would come to that—a result not unfavourable to the landlords of Ireland, and he hoped the House would not refuse to grant the jurisdiction.

EARL CAIRNS

said, that the question was whether the House ought to sanction legislation of an absolutely novel character. Nothing like it, or approaching it, had hitherto been known; and a most dangerous precedent, and one that would probably be often used in the future, would be created if the clause were allowed to pass without amendment. The noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) seemed to be aware of that, and most ingeniously he glided aside and took up a new position. The noble and learned Lord thought, having looked at the evidence, there was a case for inquiry. Well, let there be inquiry, and then after inquiry they would see what legislation ought to be made. But do not let them legislate first, and then make the inquiry afterwards.

LORD TALBOT DE MALAHIDE

supported the argument of the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns). The policy of the Government might be described in two words, as "Jedburgh justice," or execute first and try afterwards. The proposal embodied in the latter portion of the clause was manifestly unjust, and he hoped that it would be rejected.

VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT

supported the clause.

LORD DUNSANY

objected to legislating first and inquiring afterwards.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

considered that the evidence taken before the Bessborough Commission was of an extraordinary nature, and was given principally by tenant farmers. As that evidence would be brought before the Commissioners in consequence of its character, he ventured to say it could not be safely relied upon as enabling them to arrive at proper decisions.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

remarked that the evidence to which he referred did not come from tenant farmers, but from landowners, and land agents, and other experts.

On question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause?" Their Lordships divided:—Contents 90; Not-Contents 150: Majority 60.

CONTENTS.
Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Crowe, L.
	Dacre, L.
	De Mauley, L.
Devonshire, D.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
Grafton, D.	Emly, L.
Somerset, D.	Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)
Sutherland, D.	Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)
	Foley, L.
	Granard, L.(E. Granard.)
Ailesbury, M.
Bath, M.	Greville, L.
Lansdowne, M	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
Northampton, M.	Houghton, L.
	Kenmare, L.(E. Kenmare)
Camperdown, E.	Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
Durham, E.
Ellesmere, E.	Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)
Jersey, E.	Lawrence, L.
Kimberley, E.	Leigh, L.
Minto, E.	Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)
Morley, E.
Northbrook, E.	Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)
Saint German, E.	Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)
Spencer, E.
Suffolk and Berkshire, E.	Lyttelton, L.
	Manners, L.
Sydney, E.	Methuen, L.
Yarborough, E.	Monck, L. (V. Monck.)
	Moncreiff, L.
Falmouth, V.	Monson, L.[Teller.]
Gordon, V.(E. Aberdeen.)	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Leinster, V.(D. Leinster.)	Mostyn, L.
	O'Hagan, L.
Powerscourt, V.	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Torrington, V.
	Ramsay, L.(E. Dalhousie.)
Exeter, L. Bp.	Ribblesdale, L.
	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Aberdare, L.
Ampthill, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Annaly, L.	Sandys, L.
Ardilaun, L.	Saye and Sele, L.
Ashburton, L.	Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)
Belper, L.	Somerton, L.(E. Normanton.)
Blachford, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)[Teller.]	Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)	Sudeley, L.
	Suffield, L.
Calthorpe, L.	Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Camoys, L.
Carew, L.	Thurlow, L.
Carlingford, L.	Vernon, L.
Carrington, L.	Wenlock, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Wolverton, L.
	Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Beaufort, D.	Gough, V.
Buckingham and Chandos, D.	Hardinge, V.
	Hawarden, V. [Teller.]
Leeds, D.	Hereford, V.
Marlborough, D.	Hill, V.
Norfolk, D.	Hood, V.
Northumberland, D.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)
Portland, D.
Richmond, D.	Melville, V.
Wellington, D.	Templetown, V.
Abergavenny, M.	Abinger, L.
Bristol, M.	Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)
Hertford, M.	Aveland, L.
Salisbury, M.	Bateman, L.
Winchester, M.	Beaumont, L.
	Borthwick, L.
Airlie, E.	Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)
Amherst, E.
Annesley, E.	Brabourne, L.
Bandon, E.	Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)
Beauchamp, E.
Belmore, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Bradford, E.
Brownlow, E.	Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)
Cadogan, E.
Cairns, E.	Castlemaine, L.
Caledon, E.	Clermont, L.
Carnarvon, E,	Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)
Clonmell, E.
Coventry, E.	Clinton, L.
Dartrey, E.	Cloncurry, L.
Denbigh, E.	Colchester, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens berry.)	Colville of Culross, L.
	Crofton, L.
	De Freyne, L.
Eldon, E.	De L'Isle and Dudley,
Fortescue, E.	L.
Gainsborough, E.	Denman, L.
Haddington, E.	de Ros, L.
Hardwicke, E.	Digby, L.
Harewood, E.	Dinevor, L.
Lanesborough, E.	Donington, L.
Lathom, E. [Teller.]	Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.
Leven and Melville, E.
Lovelace, E.	Dunsany, L.
Macclesfield, E.	Ellenborough, L.
Manvers, E.	Elphinstone, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Morton, E.	Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)
Mount Edgcumbe, E.
Nelson, E.	Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)
Powis, E.
Radnor, E.	Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
Redesdale, E.
Romney, E.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)
Rosse, E.	Heytesbury, L.
Rosslyn, E.	Hyltpn, L.
Sandwich, E.	Inchiquin, L.
Somers, E.	Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)
Stanhope, E.
Strange, E. (D. Athol.)	Kintore, L.(E. Kintore.)
Strathmore and King-	Leconfield, L.
horn, E.	Londesborough, L.
Verulam, E.	Massy, L.
Zetland, E.	Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)
Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)	Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)
Combermere, V.	Napier, L.
Cranbrook, V.	Northwick, L.

Norton, L.	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
O'Neill, L.
Oranmore and Browne, L.	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Ormathwaite, L.	Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)
Poltimore, L.
Raglan, L.	Talbot de Malahide, L
Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)	Templemore, L.
	Tollemache, L.
Rayleigh, L.	Tredegar, L.
Rodney, L.	Trevor, L.
Rowton, L.	Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)
Sackville, L.
Saltoun, L.	Walsingham, L.
Scarsdale, L.	Wentworth, L.
Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)	Wimborne, L.
	Windsor, L.
Stanley of Alderley, L.	Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 20 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 23 (Purchase of estates by commission and. resale in parcels to tenants).

LORD EMLY

, in moving the omission of the condition that, for the purposes of the section, a competent number of tenants should mean a body of tenants who were not less in number than three-fourths of the whole number of tenants on the estate, said, he was sorry that Her Majesty's Government did not attach to these portions of the Bill the importance they deserved, for, in his opinion, there could be no more real peace and contentment in Ireland until the basis of property was extended by largely increasing the number of proprietors. With that end in view it was necessary to pass this Amendment.

Moved, In page 19, line 12, to leave out from ("tenants,") to (" who") in line 13.—(The Lord Emly.)

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, he could assure his noble Friend that the Government attached the greatest importance to this part of the measure; but, at the same time, they did not think it would be prudent to relax the condition contained in the words which it was now proposed to omit. The effect of leaving out that condition would be that it would be possible for two large tenants paying two-thirds of the whole rent of the estate to settle the question of the purchase. The result would be that the residuum of the estate occupied by the small tenants, who were unable or unwilling to pay, would be thrown into the hands of the Commissioners. The Government, therefore, thought it would be imprudent to accede to the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

said, his noble Friend (Lord Emly) did not wish to saddle the Land Commission with the residuum of the small occupiers; he only wished to leave the hands of the Commission a little less closely tied than they were at present by the terms of the Bill. It was perfectly fair to limit the responsibility of the Commission by enacting that that responsibility should not extend beyond two-thirds of the whole purchase money; but a numerical limit, which prevented the sale taking place unless three-fourths of the tenants were willing to become purchasers, was a needless restriction of the Commissioners' powers.

VISCOUNT MONCK

thought it necessary that a certain defined majority of the tenants ought to be secured before an estate was offered for sale.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

On question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause?" Their Lordships divided:—Contents 51; Not-Contents 206: Majority 155.

CONTENTS.
Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)
	Carlingford, L.
Ailesbury, M.	Carrington, L.
Northampton, M.	Clermont, L.
	Crewe, L.
Durham, E.	Dacre, L.
Fitzwilliam, E.	De Mauley, L.
Kimberley, E.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
Morley, E.
Northbrook, E.	Foley, L.
Spencer, E.	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
Sydney, E.	Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Yarborough, E.
	Lawrence, L.
Falmouth, V.	Leigh, L.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)	Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)
	Methuen, L.
Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)	Moncreiff, L.
	Monson, L. [Teller.]
Torrington, V.	O'Hagan, L.
	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Exeter, L. Bp.
	Ribblesdale, L.
Ampthill, L.	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Blachford, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]	Sandhurst, L.
	Sandys, L.
Braye, L.	Saye and Sele, L.

Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)	Sudeley, L.
Skene, L. (E. Fife.)	Suffield, L.
Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)	Thurlow, L.
	Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Beaufort, D.	Nelson, E.
Buckingham and Chandos, D.	Onslow, E.
	Pembroke and Montgomery, E.
Devonshire, D.
Grafton, D.	Powis, E.
Manchester, D.	Radnor, E.
Marlborough, D.	Ravensworth, E.
Norfolk, D.	Redesdale, E.
Northumberland, D.	Romney, E.
Portland, D.	Rosse, E.
Richmond, D.	Rosslyn, E.
Sutherland, D.	Sandwich, E.
Wellington, L.	Sondes, E.
	Stanhope, E.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Strange, E. (D. Athol.)
	Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.
Abergavenny, M.
Bath, M.	Suffolk and Berkshire, E.
Bristol, M.
Hertford, M.	Verulam, E.
Lansdowne, M. [Tellers.]	Waldegrave, E.
Salisbury, M.	Winton, E. (E. Eglintoun.)
Winchester, M.
	Zetland, E.
Airlie, E.
Amherst, E.	Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)
Annesley, E.
Bandon, E.	Combermere, V.
Bathurst, E.	Cranbrook, V.
Beauchamp, E.	Doneraile, V.
Belmore, L.	Gough, V.
Bradford, E.	Hardinge, V.
Brownlow, E.	Hawarden, V.
Cadogan, E.	Hereford, V.
Cairns, E.	Hill, V.
Caledon, E.	Hood, V.
Camperdown, E.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)
Carnarvon, E.
Clonmell, E.	Lifford, V.
Coventry, E.	Melville, V.
Denbigh, E.	Powerscourt, V.
Devon, E.	Sidmouth, V.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens berry.)	Templetown, V.
	Aberdare, L.
Eldon, E.	Abinger, L.
Ellesmere, E.	Alington, L.
Feversham, E.	Amherst, L. (V. Holmesdale.)
Fortescue, E.
Gainsborough, E.	Ardilaun, L.
Haddington, E.	Arundell of Wardour, L.
Hardwicke, E.
Harewood, E.	Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)
Ilchester, E.	Aveland, L.
Jersey, E.	Bateman, L.
Lanesborough, E.	Beaumont, L.
Lathom, E.	Belper, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Borthwick, L.
Lovelace, E.	Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)
Lytton, E.
Macclesfield, E.	Brabourne, L.
Manvers, E.	Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)
Mar and Kellie, E.
Minto, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Morton, E.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Camoys, L.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)	Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)
Castlemaine, L.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Chelmsford, L.
Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)	Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)
Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)	Mostyn, L.
Clinton, L.	Napier, L.
Colchester, L.	Northwick, L.
Colville of Culross, L.	Norton, L.
Crofton, L.	O'Neill, L.
De Freyne, L.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
De L'Isle and Dudley, L.
	Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
Denman, L.
de Ros, L.	Penrhyn, L.
Digby, L.	Plunket, L.
Dinevor, L.	Poltimore, L.
Donington, L.	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.
	Raglan, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Elphinstone, L.
Emly, L. [Teller.]	Rayleigh, L.
Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)	Rodney, L.
Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)	Rowton, L.
Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)	Sackville, L.
	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)	Saltoun, L.
	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Granard, L. (E. Granard.)
	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Greville, L.
Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)	Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Harlech, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Hatherton, L.	Stratheden and Camp-
Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)	bell, L.
Heytesbury, L.	Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)
Houghton, L.
Hylton, L.	Talbot de Malahide, L.
Inchiquin, L.	Templemore, L.
Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)	Tollemache, L.
	Tredegar, L.
Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)	Trevor, L.
Kintore, L. (E. Kin tore.)	Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)
Leconfield, L.	Ventry, L.
Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)	Vernon, L.
	Walsingham, L.
Londesborough, L.	Waveney, L.
Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)	Wenlock, L.
	Wentworth, L.
Lyttelton, L.	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Lyveden, L.
Manners, L.	Wimborne, L.
Massy, L.	Windsor, L.
Monck, L. (V. Monck.)	Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 24 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 31 (Proceedings of Commission).

LORD GREVILLE

asked if the 1st sub-section could not be given up. Surely, if their Lordships had any con- fidence in the Commission which they had appointed, they might leave it to them to be satisfied of the expediency of purchasing the estate.

LORD CARLINGFORD

, in reply, said, the clause was necessary to the Bill, it being a Treasury clause, and the Government could not give it up.

LORD GREVILLE

then moved the omission of the 1st sub-section, which provides that— The Land Commission, before buying any estate, shall reasonably satisfy themselves that a resale can be effected without loss, and that the purchasers will be in a position to work their holdings profitably. The noble Lord said he did it on the ground that a discretion should be left to the Court in these matters, and that the Court, already overburdened with work, if further encumbered with specific directions, would probably come to a dead-lock.

Moved, In page 25, line 14, to leave out from ("The") to ("profitably,") in line 17.—(The Lord Greville.)

VISCOUNT MONCK

said, that the work before the Commissioners seemed to him to be appalling. He was afraid that the Commissioners would be so flooded with work that the whole thing would fall through. A little more might be left to their discretion without binding them down by so many conditions as existed in the clause. He would advise their Lordships to accept the Amendment of his noble Friend.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

hoped the Government would not put the Committee to the inconvenience of again parading through the heated Division Lobbies, if it could be avoided.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLET

said, it would be unpardonable to ask the Committee to take another division; but he had felt it his duty to take the last division upon this matter, which involved the expenditure of money. He should regret that the words "and that the purchasers will be in a position to work their holdings profitably" should be omitted, seeing that, in this case, it was the duty of the Government to consider the importance of looking to the interests of the public Treasury. It was only natural that the landlords should wish to make the terms and conditions as easy for themselves as possible. The clause gave simple directions for the protection of the public purse. The Land Commissioners were to be reasonably satisfied that the sales could be effected without loss.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

protested against the interpretation that the landlords wished to get rid of their estates at the most advantageous terms. They simply wished to give every facility possible to that policy of creating small proprietors in Ireland which would have beneficial results.

Amendment agreed to; sub-section struck out accordingly.

On the Motion of The Earl CAIRNS, sub-section (2.) struck out of the clause.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 (Transfer of purchase powers of Board of Works to Land Commission).

On the Motion of The LORD PRIVY SEAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 26, line 13, after ("Act,") insert ("and subject to the provision of this Act;") and in line 14, leave out ("Act,") and insert (Acts").

Clause, as amended, agreed to

Clause 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 (Court to mean civil bill court).

THE EARL OF ROSSE

moved, in page 27, line 24, after ("accordingly,") to insert— ("Where the judicial rent in respect of any holding is fixed by the court or the Land Commission, the court or Land Commission shall cause an entry of the amount of such judicial rent to be made in a book to be kept for such purpose in the prescribed manner, and in every case in which the amount of the judicial rent so fixed shall be higher or lower than the rent theretofore payable, the Land Commission shall add to such entry the circumstances and reasons in and for which such judicial rent was fixed at such amount, and in every case the court or the Land Commission shall give to the landlord and tenant a copy of such entry.")

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

hoped the noble Earl would not press the Amendment. It would not work, and, in his opinion, the latter part of it would be in the highest degree undesirable, and would be calculated to raise much controversy.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 35 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 41 (Quorum of Commission).

EARL CAIRNS

moved, in page 30, line 11, to leave out from ("by") to the end of the clause, and insert— ("All three Commissioners sitting together, and thereupon such case shall be heard by all three Commissioners sitting together, except in the case of the illness or unavoidable absence of any one Commissioner, when any such case may, with the consent of the parties, he heard by two Commissioners sitting together.") The noble and learned Earl said, the clause informed them that all the powers of the Bill were to be exercised not only by the Commission, but by the Sub-Commissioners; but who the Sub-Commissioners were they did not know. The clause provided that where a person was dissatisfied with the judgment of a member of the Commission or of a Sub-Commissioner, the party might require the case to be re-heard by at least two Commissioners. He proposed to amend the clause so that it would require the case to be re-heard by all three Commissioners sitting together.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

opposed the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.

Clause 44 (Powers of Commission).

EARL CAIRNS

moved, in page 31, line 1, after ("may,") insert— ("In case it thinks fit to permit any party aggrieved by the decision of the Land Commission in any proceedings to appeal in respect of any matter arising in such proceedings to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland.")

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

remarked that the Land Court was constituted with special powers, involving a large discretion as to their exercise, and their decisions were more like those of arbitrators. The questions it dealt with were not, like legal questions, suitable for appeal. There was power given by the clause, as it stood, to send any questions of law which might arise to the Court of Appeal. He, therefore, objected to the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, it was essential to the character of arbitrators that they should be appointed by the parties concerned in the dispute. Therefore, it was impossible to deal with this as a question of arbitration. These Commissioners were appointed by Her Majesty's Government, who were certainly not impartial as between the two sides in these questions. Judges appointed with such exceptional powers, and in such an exceptional manner, possessed all the attributes of arbitrators except that of impartiality. Their proceedings were very likely to be regarded with discontent and suspicion, and nothing was more calculated to remove that discontent and suspicion than the knowledge that there was a power of appeal to an admittedly impartial body. Therefore, he trusted Her Majesty's Government would allow the Amendment to pass.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

regretted the tone of the noble Marquess's remarks. To say that the Commission was not an impartial tribunal, because its Members were appointed by the Government, was a very rash assertion, and he utterly repudiated it. Men of all political Parties, when they accepted a judicial office, might be trusted to decide with judicial impartiality the cases brought before them.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he did not question the perfect honesty with which these gentlemen would address themselves to their task; but he could not forget the fact that the matters on which they were about to decide were matters which had been fiercely contested by rival schools of thought. The majority of the Commissioners were known to be under a prepossession in favour of one of those schools of thought, and they had been appointed by a Government whose prepossessions in regard to that particular controversy there could be no doubt about whatever, and who had announced the necessity of their appointing gentlemen who had such prepossessions. He asserted that it was not a tribunal of arbitration, and that the circumstances in which it had been appointed deprived it of that particular kind of trust which was reposed in arbitrators who were appointed by the two contending parties.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 45 to 52, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.

Clause 53 (Arrears of rent, how dealt with).

LORD CLONCUEEY

moved, in page 34, to leave out from ("valued,") in line 28, to ("exceeding,") in line 30, both inclusive, and insert ("the rent payable in respect of which does not exceed.") The noble Lord said, it was well known that Griffith's valuation was no indication of the real value.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

agreed that Griffith's valuation was unsatisfactory; but it would be still more unsatisfactory and inconvenient to take the actual rent. The rent did not represent the value of the holding, as various drawbacks ought to be taken into consideration.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, it was certain that whatever might be a bad test of valuation, Griffith's valuation was utterly detestable and untrustworthy.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that might be true as a general proposition; but the question was what was desirable in this case.

LORD CLONCURRY

withdrew the Amendment, as it was too late to discuss it, and said he should raise the question on the Report.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 54 agreed to.

Clause 55 (Definitions).

On the Motion of The Lord INCHIQUIN, Amendment made, in page 37, line 31, by leaving out from ("Act") to ("and,") in line 34.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 56 agreed to.

Clause 57 (Saving in case of inability to make immediate application to court).

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

moved, in page 39, lines 22 to 30 inclusive, to leave out the following words:— ("Whenever, within six months after the passing of this Act, any action shall be pending or be brought against a tenant to recover a debt or damages before or after an application to fix a judicial rent, and shall be pending before such application is disposed of, the court before which such action is pending shall have power, upon such terms and conditions as the court may think fit, to stay the sale, under any writ of execution in such action, of the tenancy in respect of which such application is pending until the termination of the proceedings to fix such judicial rent.") The noble Marquess said that if the words that he proposed to omit were now rejected, after a short discussion, they would only die by a process similar to that by which they had received their birth. At the very end of the Report, in the House of Commons, Mr. Parnell suddenly moved this singular pendant to the clause, and obtained its acceptance by the Government. It was a most extraordinary clause. By its operation any tenant who had not paid his rent to his landlord, or his interest to his banker, or who had not satisfied his mortgagee, or who had not paid his tradesman, would be able to defer any action taken against him by a creditor by the simple process of applying for a judicial rent to be fixed. The respite thereby gained would not be small or unimportant. Besides the immorality of the proposal, it threw upon the Land Commissioners work far in excess even of the labours of Hercules, much less of those exalted natures, notwithstanding that they were already over-burdened with an amount of business which he (the Marquess of Salisbury) would say would result, as one of the first phenomena of the Bill, in a hopeless dead-lock. A further delay might be interposed if the debtor were ingenious enough to induce his friends also to apply for judicial rents to the already overworked Assistant Commissioner of the district. By that process there would speedily be a general suspension of payment of debts throughout Ireland. He believed in Eastern countries, on the occasion of any great public rejoicing, it was sometimes the habit of despotic Sovereigns to announce that all debts should be remitted. He did not know whether such an announcement was received with as much rejoicing amongst the creditors as amongst the debtors; but on the principle of satisfying everybody, considering that the debtors were much more numerous than the creditors, he could imagine that the Government could produce no more popular measure than one announcing to all debtors in Ireland that for six months or two years they need not pay their debts. He ventured, however, to claim justice for England. If these benefits were to be given to Ireland, he thought it would be found that a very large number of people on this side of St. George's Channel would be of opinion that this legislation ought not to be confined to Ireland, and would press Her Majesty's Government to take into consideration the condition of the oppressed English debtors. He thought he had said enough to show that the Amendment, which was hastily brought in by Mr. Parnell, without Notice, at the last moment, and accepted by the Government, ought not to be allowed by their Lordships to form part of this measure.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, he did not think the Amendment of Mr. Parnell to the clause was quite so wonderful as the noble Marquess seemed to fancy. It was evidently constructed on the analogy of Clause 12, and the whole raison d'âtre of it was that it did follow that analogy. Clause 12 provided that when any proceedings of a landlord against a tenant were pending in a County Court, the Court should have power to stay those proceedings within certain limits in order to enable the tenant to have an opportunity of availing himself of this Bill. It was thought that when proceedings were pending in the Court above, the same opportunity should be given with certain restrictions to the tenant. The House would observe that the Court was empowered to impose such terms on the applicant as it might think fit. For instance, the Court would be perfectly at liberty to require the tenant to pay half his rent into Court or to give security for the payment of it. The Government, however, would have no objection to insert words of limitation like—"If the Court shall think the application reasonable." The landlord could not be injured by the clause; because, the moment he issued his writ, and lodged it in the hands of the sheriff, the land was at once bound against all other creditors

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, the provision was fenced round with so many safeguards that it could not very well act injuriously.

EARL CAIRNS

supported the Amendment, on the ground that it would be a startling innovation on all previous legal arrangements to confer the extraordinary power which the Government had consented to insert in the clause at the last moment. He remembered only one precedent of this kind. It occurred two centuries ago, when the Exchequer was shut up, and the people could not be paid. The course was then taken of applying to the Court of Chancery for an injunction to prevent any creditor from recovering his debts from the bankers. Under the clause, an appli- cation might be made not for the bonâ fide purpose of obtaining a judicial rent, but for the collateral purpose of preventing debtors from having their debts recovered from them. In the extreme hurry in which the clause was drawn, by a curious oversight, it seemed to have been, overlooked that it did not relate to proceedings in bankruptcy. Consequently, a landlord might make a tenant a bankrupt, and then he would be perfectly free from the operation of this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

The Report of the amendments to be received on Monday next; and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No 204.)

House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock A.M., to Monday next, Four o'clock.