CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO LORDS AMENDMENTS.

HL Deb 12 August 1881 vol 264 cc1642-706

Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and Commons consequential Amendments, and Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments considered (according to order).

On the Motion of The LORD PRIVY SEAL, the following Amendments disagreed to by the Commons:—In page 1, line 26, leave out from ("court") to ("declare") in line 28, and insert ("shall"); and in line 28, after ("void") insert ("if the landlord shall so require")—not insisted on.

On the Lords Amendment in page 2, line 5, amended by the Commons as follows:—In line 5, leave out ("be compensated") and insert ("compensation"); in line 8, insert ("and substantially maintained,") and after ("landlord") leave out the word ("or") and insert ("and"); and in line 9, insert ("made or acquired.")

Moved, "That this House doth agree to the Amendments made by the Commons in the said Amendment."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he did not know whether the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) wished to assume the paternity of his own child; but, if not, he (the Marquess of Salisbury) would do so. The Amendment which the Commons had proposed to this Proviso, and which might be shortly described as an English-managed estate Amendment, was to some extent based on a reasonable principle—that was to say, they had no desire that estates which had been once equipped by the landlord, and from that time had been entirely abandoned to the tenant, should be treated as English-managed estates, because that would not be a just representation of the system of management that prevailed in this country. On the other hand, the words "substantially maintained" went a good deal too far, and would tend to exclude from the benefit of the provision estates which really had been managed on the English system, but in which the tenant might have done certain incidental repairs, or in which he might have repaired some particular improvements. A tenant might have constantly cleared out the end of a ditch—that was a permanent improvement; he had substantially attended to it, and not the landlord; and, therefore, that was no longer an English-managed estate and no longer to be excluded. If the Amendment of the Commons were adopted simply as it stood, the result would be that the provision to which their Lordships assented would become almost nugatory, and would, practically, not apply to the estates at which it was originally directed. He had therefore to move an Amendment which, at first sight, might not seem to be a large one, but which would, he thought, cover the distance between the view sustained by the Commons and that held by their Lordships. Instead of the words "substantially maintained" he proposed to insert "have been in the main upheld." The difference between these two formulae was this—"substantially maintained" would apply to each individual improvement. If one ditch was habitually maintained by the tenant under the words "substantially maintained," the holding would no longer be an English-managed estate; but if they said that the generality of the improvements were to be maintained by the landlord, or, in other words, were to be "in the main upheld," they established this principle—that where the majority of the improvements were sustained by the landlord it would be an English-managed estate, and excluded from the provisions of the clause. That corresponded exactly with the practical state of things on these English-managed estates. He moved that the Commons' Amendment be amended by omitting the words "and substantially maintained," and substituting "have in the main been upheld."

Moved,To leave out the words ("and substantially maintained,") and insert the words ("have in the main been upheld.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?"

THE DUKE or ARGYLL

said, that as he was responsible for the original proposal—indeed, he had no difficulty in assuming its paternity—he wished to say that the action of the other House with respect to it had convinced him that that House and the Government were pre- pared to consider the question fairly and candidly. Though he believed the original Amendment to be consistent with justice and common sense, he was bound to own that there were many persons who had a strong objection to it—on what ground he did not know, unless it were that they positively disliked to see landlords undertake the duty of managing their estates and the duty of making improvements. All except those who held that view acknowledged the Amendment to be a reasonable one. With respect to the words of the Amendment of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), he was bound to say he could not see the distinction between the words "substantially maintained" and "in the main upheld." He did not know what might be the judicial interpretation of the words "substantially maintained;" but he apprehended, on the other hand, that nobody could anticipate what might be the judicial interpretation of the words "in the main upheld." When he asked his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the words "substantially maintained" were intended to make the Amendment more strict or more loose, his noble Friend told him plainly that they were intended to make it less strict. He did not think, however, that the noble Marquess had given a fair example of a permanent improvement when he mentioned the clearing out of a ditch, because a ditch was a temporary and not a permanent improvement. What he (the Duke of Argyll) meant by permanent improvements were buildings, fences, and the main drainage of farms—that was what was called permanent improvements in England and Scotland. In his observations the noble Marquess referred to English-managed estates. But to that expression he (the Duke of Argyll) vehemently objected, because the Amendment referred, not to "estates," but to "holdings" upon which the landlord had made all the permanent improvements. He had always maintained that it would be unfair to deprive a tenant of the benefit of his own improvements, because other tenants might have the improvements on their holdings made by the landlord. He earnestly trusted that the House would understand what he believed to be the immense difficulties surrounding this Amendment. Although the words "substan- tially maintained," strictly interpreted, excluded certain holdings which, in his view, ought to be included, yet this great consequence would follow—that every landlord in Ireland would know for the future by the decision of the Court how he was to improve his holding, so as to take advantage of this clause. He placed the greatest value on the concession made by the Government and the House of Commons, and he was prepared to accept the words "substantially maintained" as inserted by the Commons.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that, instead of his former Amendment, he would move that the words "substantially maintained" be left out in order to insert after "made," "or acquired, and have in the main been upheld."

Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

Moved, To leave out the words ("and substantially maintained") and insert the words ("or acquired.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?"

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had altered the words of his Amendment, and, in doing so, seemed to have received a new light from some quarter with respect to the Bill. He did not know what the noble Marquess meant by "acquired."

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that the words "or acquired" were inserted by the House of Commons a few lines further on in the same clause. The addition of the words in question would meet the case of a man who had bought his land and paid too much for it, and where the improvements had been acquired.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, that the intention of the Government in inserting the words "substantially maintained" was that where a landlord had, or should have for the future, really and bonâ fide equipped and maintained a farm under the English system, the power of sale should be taken away from the tenant. But, having made that concession, the Government desired to make it a genuine case, such as had been contemplated throughout by his noble Friend the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll). He was not, at a moment's notice, prepared to accept the words "or acquired;" in fact, he could not see their significance in that connection. He believed that the first words the noble Marquess had proposed—" in the main upheld"—had the same scope as the words now in the clause, and he was willing to accept them.

Resolved in the negative.

On question, "That the words ("or acquired ") be there inserted? "

Their Lordships divided:—Contents 144; Not-Contents 69: Majority 75.

CONTENTS.
Beaufort, D.	Radnor, E.
Buckingham and Chandos, D.	Redesdale, E.
	Romney, E.
Leeds, D.	Rosse, E.
Manchester, D.	Somers, E.
Norfolk, D.	Sondes, E.
Northumberland, D.	Stanhope, E.
Portland, D.	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Verulam, E.
Abergavenny, M.	Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)
Bristol, M.
Hertford, M.	Cranbrook, V.
Salisbury, M.	Doneraile, V.
Winchester, M.	Gough, V.
	Hardinge, V.
Annesley, E.	Hawarden, V. [Teller.]
Bandon, E.	Hereford, V.
Bathurst, E.	Hood, V.
Beauchamp, E.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)
Cadogan, E.
Cairns, E.	Lifford, V.
Caledon, E.	Melville, V.
Carnarvon, E.	Sidmouth, V.
Clonmell, E.	Templetown, V.
Coventry, E.
De La Warr, E.	Annaly, L.
Denbigh, E.	Ardilaun, L.
Devon, E.	Arundell of Wardour, L.
Eldon, E.
Ellesmere, E.	Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)
Ferrers, E.	Bateman, L.
Feversham, E.	Borthwick, L.
Gainsborough, E.	Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)
Haddington, E.
Hardwicke, E.	Brabourne, L.
Jersey, E.	Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)
Lanesborough, E.
Lathom, E. [Teller.]	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Leven and Melville, E.
Lucan, E.	Byron, L.
Lytton, E.	Castlemaine, L.
Macclesfield, E.	Chelmsford, L.
Mansfield, E.	Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)
Manvers, E.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Clinton, L.
Nelson, E.	Cloncurry, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E.	Colchester, L.
	Colville of Culross, L.

Cottesloe, L.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Crofton, L.
De L'Isle and Dudley, L.	Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
Denman, L.	Plunket, L.
Digby, L.	Poltimore, L.
Donington, L.	Raglan, L.
Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.	Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Dunsany, L.	Rayleigh, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Sackville, L.
Elphinstone, L.	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Fisherwick, L. (M. Donegal.)
	Saltoun, L.
Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Gage, L. (V. Gage.)	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)
	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)
	Stanley of Alderley, L.
	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Harlech, L.
Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Inchiquin, L.	Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)
Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)
	Talbot de Malahide, L.
Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)	Templemore, L.
Lamington, L.	Tollemache, L.
Leconfield, L.	Tredegar, L.
Massy, L.	Trevor, L.
Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)	Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)
Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)	Ventry, L.
	Wentworth, L.
Mowbray, L.	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Napier, L.
Northwick, L.	Wimborne, L.
Norton, L.	Windsor, L.
O'Neill, L.	Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Powerscourt, V.
	Sherbrooke, V.
Grafton, D.	Exeter, L. Bp.
Somerset, D.
	Ampthill, L.
Ailesbury, M.	Belper, L.
Bath, M.	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.)
Lansdowne, M.
	Braye, L.
Camperdown, E.	Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)
Derby, E.
Essex, E.	Carlingford, L.
Fortescue, E.	Carrington, L.
Granville, E.	Churchill, L.
Ilchester, E.	Clermont, L.
Kimberley, E.	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Minto, E.
Morley, E.	Emly, L.
Northbrook, E.	Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)
Shaftesbury, E.	Fingall, E. (E. Fingall.)
Spencer, E.
Suffolk and Berkshire, E.	Foley, L.
	Granard, L. (E. Granard.)
Sydney, E.
	Greville, L.
Falmouth, V.	Hatherton, L.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)	Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount Earl.)	Robartes, L.
	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Leigh, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Lyttelton, L.	Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Methuen, L.
Monck, L. (V. Monck.)	Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Monson, L. [Teller.]
Monteagle of Brandon, L.	Sudeley, L.
	Suffield, L.
Mount Temple, L.	Thurlow, L.
O'Hagan, L.	Truro, L.
Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)	Vernon, L.
	Vivian, L.
Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)	Waveney, L.
	Wolverton, L.
Ribblesdale, L.	Wrottesley, L.

Resolved in the affirmative.

Further Amendment made by inserting after the word ("acquired") the words ("and have been in the main upheld.")

On Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment, in line 9, to leave out "or" and insert "and."

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

invited the Government to give an explanation of it, as he could not understand how the landlord and his predecessor in title—say his grandfather—could have made an improvement conjointly, as the words required. He did not wish to quarrel with the grammar of Her Majesty's Government; but he must formally move the restoration, of the word "or."

Moved, "That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD CARLINGFORD

explained that the objection to the word "or" was that, if it were used, then if one of the predecessors of the landlord had made and maintained any improvements—no matter how long back—the tenancy would be excluded from the full benefit of the Bill, although the improvements might never since have been maintained by the landlord. The whole idea of the Government was to preserve the continuity of the improvements.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, the logical and grammatical blunder of the Government was not one into which it was likely the Court would fall; and, therefore, he must press the Motion.

On question? disagreed to.

Lords Amendment, in page 2, line 16, to insert ("or paid for"), to which the Commons have disagreed.

Moved, "That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

asked for some intelligible reason for omitting the words. What was to happen in a case where the landlord had paid the tenant for the improvements he tad made—was the landlord to have no value for improvements so made and paid for? If objection were taken to the insertion of the words at the place in question, he should insert them at some other place.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

explained that the word "made" met the case completely, because it comprehended all improvements effected by persons employed by the landlord, and who, of course, received payment for their labour.

On question? resolved in the affirmative.

Moved, In page 2, line 18, after ("title") to insert ("or have been paid for by the landlord or his predecessor in title."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On question?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

objected to the Amendment, as it was perfectly clear that the landlord had made the improvements, if he had paid for them.

LORD LECONFIELD

stated that the Amendment would give more security to the improving landlords, and maintained that it would affect his own improvements.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

admitted that; but he considered the clause would be unsafe without the Amendment.

LORD CARLINGFORD

refused to give way.

On the House being cleared for the division,

EARL GRANVILLE

said, the Government would not give their Lordships the trouble of dividing.

Resolved in the affirmative.

Lords Amendment in page 2, line 28, to which the Commons have disagreed.

Moved, "That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, that, having moved it originally, he wished to say a few words on that Amendment, and he hoped he might be allowed to make a proposal with regard to it. He regretted it had not been agreed to, at least in a modified form, because he thought that the Bill as it stood did a wrong and an injustice for which this House ought to provide a remedy. He would simply read the clause of the Act of 1870 which provided for the purchase of the tenant right. It ran as follows:— Where a landlord has purchased or acquired, or shall hereafter purchase or acquire, the Ulster tenant right custom, such holding shall henceforth cease to be subject to the Ulster tenant right custom. Many landlords might have been induced by that distinct guarantee on the part of the Legislature to free their holdings from the Ulster tenant right custom, and to expend considerable sums with that object. It might be said that the Bill did not subject these holdings to the Ulster Custom. This was literally and technically true; but it subjected them to the power of sale, which was the heart and soul of the Ulster Custom; and unless some provision were made to meet the case, there would be almost a breach of faith on the part of Parliament, for that money would be confiscated under the present Bill as it stood. The Amendment he had proposed, and which their Lordships adopted, was intended to obviate that hardship. The precise form of his Amendment was another matter. It was most desirable that that House should exhibit the virtue of promptitude in the transaction of Public Business; but he had some reason to complain of the haste with which the Bill had been passed through the Committee stage. Their Lordships had only had a few hours to consider the details of a most complicated measure, which underwent alteration, having been hacked about, and amended in every sort of way possible up to the last moment in the other House. Consequently, they had had little time to consider what would be the effect of particular words with regard to provisions of this kind. He was bound to admit that the House of Commons, in the Seasons they had given for disagree- ing with his Amendment—namely, on the ground that cases of hardship might arise in which the occupying tenant, who was quite unconnected with the transaction between the former tenant and the landlord, might suffer—had hit a blot in the particular words he proposed to insert, for under them there would have been no possibility of the tenant selling the remainder of the tenant right, which might have been left to him after an increment of rent. It was also pointed out that by other parts of the Bill the object he had in view was provided for; but he still believed the Amendment to be necessary, though he was willing to put it in a modified form. The landlord, after buying the tenant right, might, no doubt, recoup himself by increment of rent; and, in that case, of course, there could be no question of repaying him for his outlay on the sale of the tenancy. He was not prepared, therefore, to insist on the particular words of his Amendment. If, however, the Government had wished to meet the case, they might easily have suggested, in "another place," words which would have avoided the injustice that he desired to prevent. As they had not done so, he now moved to add, after the 1st paragraph of this 9th sub-section, these words— And where the holding is sold for the first time under the provisions of this Act, the landlord may apply to the Court to apportion to him such part, if any, of the purchase money as may seem to the Court to be just under all the circumstances of the case; and the Court may so apportion such part accordingly. He could not help thinking that his Amendment was really in accordance with the intentions of the Government. The words which he had suggested would give direction to the Court to consider the particular circumstances in reference to each case; and he could not help saying that unless Government adopted some such words there would be a positive breach of faith on the part of the Government to those individuals who had purchased the tenant right.

Moved, To insert, in lieu of the Amendment made by the Lords to which the Commons have disagreed, the following words:— ("Where, before the passing of this Act, the landlord, or any of his predecessors in title, has purchased or acquired the Ulster tenant right custom, or the benefit of a usage corresponding to the Ulster tenant right custom to which any holding was subject, and such holding has, in pursuance of section one or section two of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, ceased to be subject to such custom or usage; and, where the holding is sold for the first time under the provisions of this Act, the landlord may apply to the court to apportion to him such part, if any, of the purchase money as may seem to the court to be just under all the circumstances of the case; and the court may so apportion such part accordingly,")—(The Duke of Argyll.)

LORD WAVENEY,

in supporting the Amendment, quoted from the letter of a gentleman of great experience the following account of the difficulties of landlords in the matter of tenant right:— I purchased several farms at prices varying from £o10 to £o15 per statute acre. In most cases, I threw down the houses and added the land to the adjoining farm. In case of the enlarged farm changing hands, which has taken place in more than one instance, I protect myself by allowing only the tenant's right of the original portion to be sold, the new tenant becoming my tenant for the land purchased by me on the same terms as the man from whom he purchases the original portion—that is, he has tenant right only in the farm originally owned by the seller and none in that purchased by me. Nor can I see how he can justly acquire that right, unless by paying me the money I paid, less the capital value of any additional rent placed on the land in consequence of that purchase. This latter, however, is small, as in no case can a landlord get a rent equal to his rent proper and interest on his purchase of tenant right. Under the Land Bill my tenant could sell both portions, my purchase would merge in the sale, and I should lose all not covered by higher rent. Now, I have the right to resume possession if not satisfied with any proposed new arrangement, and could recoup myself by restoring the original conditions of two small farms. The landlord's compensation, it is said, in case of a sale of a tenant right by a tenant who had taken a farm, the tenant right of which had been purchased by the landlord and afterwards sold, would come out of the wrong person if then claimed. This is wrong. The seller would be selling that for which he never paid, and would suffer no injury by being obliged to hand over the proceeds of the sale, less his claim for improvements, if any, to the landlord to whom the property belongs, and the buyer would suffer no injury by paying the rightful owner instead of the tenant, who, by a lucky chance of law, was selling what did not belong to him. A great injustice will be done to those who have freely spent money in the hope of raising the condition and status of the smaller tenantry. Had I taken advantage of the law as it stood, I might have enlarged the holdings by ejecting those too small to live by farming, and paid nothing by way of compensation before 1870. He trusted that the injustice pointed out by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) would be provided for by the Govern- ment accepting the proposed Amendment. If some such provision were not made, a great injustice would be done to a large number of landlords.

LORD CARLINGFORD

hoped their Lordships would not insist upon this Amendment. He should like to remind the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) of what was done in this matter by the Act of 1870. No doubt, the Act said that an Ulster farm, once free of the Ulster Custom, should remain free from it. But what more did it do? Side by side with that provision, it subjected the holding to all the other general provisions of the Act. And what were they? They included compensation for disturbance, and in his (Lord Carlingford's) view, as a matter of principle, that compensation for disturbance was a harder measure to the landlords than anything the Government were doing under the provisions of this Act. In the case of tenant right he received some tangible value; but the payment of compensation for disturbance was not a payment which represented any value whatever. It was partly a payment in the nature of a penalty, and partly in the nature of a compulsory poor law to relieve the tenant. In point of principle, indeed, he maintained that it was a very strong measure to require every landlord in Ireland, including those who had bought up the Ulster Custom, to submit to the general provision of compensation for disturbance. He only mentioned that to remind them of what had been done by the Act of 1870. As to the question now before them, the Government's view with reference to the noble Duke's proposal that a lump sum should be given by a tenant in the case of the tenant right having been purchased was that it would be a practical injustice. They were convinced that, in practice, the only mode in any case, supposing there had been no legislation at all on the subject, in which a landlord could have recouped himself, would be in the way of increased rent, representing the full interest of the expenditure which—in his (Lord Carling-ford's) opinion foolishly—he had made. If he had. not so increased the rent upon the tenant right payment which he had himself made, including, of course, valuable improvements on the holding—if he had not done so, it was a case of great indulgence; and he would be only in the same position as any other indulgent landlord in Ireland. If, on the other hand, he had fixed his rent according to the circumstances of the case, and calculated it upon the tenant right payment, he would have lost nothing by the transaction. That was how the question stood. There might be cases of hardship of that kind. They could not be helped as regarded the past; but in future they could not arise, as the Bill would in all cases, either by agreement or the intervention of the Court, insure to the landlord a fair rent. What, then, would be the position of the tenant? There would be an increase of rent equivalent to the capital sum expended by the landlord, and that increase of rent would continue after a new tenant entered upon the holding. Therefore, if the landlord had fixed his rent according to the circumstances of the case, would it be reasonable to ask the tenant in occupation, who might have been paying the full value of the farm, to pay the landlord a lump sum in respect to tenant right, as suggested? The effect would be, if the tenant had to sell his tenant right on that increased rent, the value of his interest would be largely decreased, and it was quite evident that it would be preposterous and impossible to require that he should not only pay the capital sum to his landlord, but also that the increased rent calculated upon that capital sum should continue upon the holding, and that he should be required to sell on the diminished value. If that were to be done, it would be essential that the Court should reduce the rent before the man sold. If the landlord's tenant right payment, which might have been paid—God knows when—were to be repaid by the actual tenant, then the rent of that farm must be reduced accordingly. It must be reduced to the figure at which it would have stood if the landlord had not so bought the tenant right, and the tenant must be able to sell it at that reduced figure of rent. It was impossible that the landlord should receive that sum from the tenant, and, at the same time, go on obtaining to the end of time a high rent calculated upon another condition of things. These were some of the difficulties which they would have to meet if they attempted to make any provision such as his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) had proposed. The suggestion now made by no means differed in effect from the words already standing in the original Amendment. The Government were convinced that, although the Bill was a strong and severe interference with the action of the landlord, it did not, in the matter at issue, subject him to any money loss. The Government admitted, to the fullest extent, that the Bill would defeat and overrule the policy and the system adopted by the few landlords now in question; but beyond that they did not go. They were convinced that, in these cases, the landlord would have just the same means, as a matter of money, of recouping himself for his expenditure as he would have had if there had been no new legislation whatever, that means being the obtaining of a rent calculated upon the circumstances of the holding.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that, while believing that the original Amendment of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) was not properly open to objection, he believed that this, as now improved, would be the most elastic and natural method of removing any misapprehension as to the effect of honouring the promise made by Parliament in 1870. The arguments of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal were of two kinds. In the first place, he pointed out the great enormity of the provisions of the Act of 1870, and said that the Government had done nothing in this Bill at all so bad as that. But he (the Marquess of Salisbury) could not admit that the noble Lord's appeal to his own wrong constituted any justification for any wrongs which he might in the future attempt to commit. But then the noble Lord went on to say that if the landlord suffered by reason of having bought the tenant right, and never getting value for it, at least he was paid by the increase of rent which was the result of the absence of the tenant right. But if there was one thing more than another which the noble Lord had laboured to impress upon the House, it was that there was no connection between the growth of tenant right and the amount of rent paid. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) would, if he might make use of a trivial simile, say that he could not understand under which thimble the pea now was. He could not understand whether the noble Lord had pinned his faith to the doctrine that the money payable by an incoming tenant and the rent to be exacted were to be twin sisters, growing up side by side, but independently, or whether they were to be dependent upon each other, the one rising as the other fell. In some of the debates that had taken place the noble Lord had taken the first view; but now his argument was based upon the second. What was the position of the tenant who would be affected by the Amendment, and who was the subject of so much commiseration, out of the result of whose free sale it was proposed that the first compensation of the landlord would come? He had come into the farm entirely without the payment of any purchase money whatever. He was in the country of Ulster tenant right, and surrounded by farms every one of whose occupants had paid a heavy sum before occupation of the farm, and he had enjoyed all the benefits of the tenant right, all the benefits conferred on the farm by the permanent buildings erected by his predecessors in title, and enjoyed them without paying the price for them; and before he could exercise the right of sale which the surrounding tenants possessed, he was bound to come on a level with them in respect of the sacrifices which they had made in the purchase of the tenant right. He must purchase that which he desired to sell as the others had. The difference between the Ulster Custom and the tenant right of the rest of Ireland no doubt caused considerable difficulty in dealing with the matter. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal had repeatedly spoken of the man who had purchased his tenant right as a foolish man. But he was induced to do so by an Act of Parliament which the noble Lord had been instrumental in passing. In Ulster a landlord had bought up the tenant right. He did so under the Act of 1870, and now it was proposed by Parliament that it should be taken from him, and given to the tenant. His (the Marquess of Salisbury's) view of the matter was that the Government had, by their Bill, been guilty, with respect to the whole of the landlords of Ireland, of something which was very like spoliation as regards their Common Law rights; and in this particular case, in addition to spoliation as regards their Common Law right, they were committing a special spoliation as against the guarantee of an Act of Parliament.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

failed to see any valid objection on the part of the Government to the proposal to give the Court power to apportion a certain amount of the purchase money to the landlord, if it should be satisfied that he had not been repaid for his expenditure in any other way. As he understood the noble Duke's (the Duke of Argyll's) Amendment, each case would be submitted to the Court, and the Court would apportion what belonged to the landlord and what belonged to the tenant, if he was entitled to tenant right. He could not, therefore, understand the difficulty of the Government. Why should not a landlord who had bought up the tenant right be recouped out of the money obtained on the first sale of the tenant under this Bill? The landlord who had purchased the tenant right would be compelled either to lose his money or to charge a sufficient increment of rent to pay him interest on it. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said that that was what he ought to do; but in many cases it would be practically impossible for him to do so. He had given such a large sum for tenant right that he would be most unwilling to charge sufficient interest in the way of rent. So far as he knew, the reason why many landlords had bought up the tenant right was for the express purpose of insuring that men should not be overburdened by rent and interest on tenant right; and if they charged interest on themselves, they would be defeating the very end for which they had bought it. It would be compelling the landlords to raise their rents in order to pay themselves. That would be a most injudicious thing to do and he confessed he could not understand why they should not be allowed to go to Court if they could show to its satisfaction that they had not been repaid by increased rent or in any other way. He, therefore, supported the Amendment of his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll).

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

contended that the methods of repaying the landlord which seemed to be popular with some noble Lords could not be considered just. What his noble Friend (the Earl of Dunraven) had just said showed the extraordinary positions into which the question would be brought if they persisted in the Amendment. The noble Earl had said truly that if the landlords bought the tenant right they never expected to get it back in rent. If they could not get it back in rent, then it appeared to him that they would be repaid by the tenant who happened to occupy the farm. Though his noble Friend never expected to get recouped, and merely had the pleasure of knowing he was freed from the shackles which the Ulster tenant right imposed as to the selection of the tenant, yet his noble Friend supported an Amendment for payment by the tenant, who had not derived any advantage from the outlay. He should like to know how, if the landlord could not expect to get an equivalent in rent for his capital, he could expect to get the capital itself?

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

explained that his present Amendment was not the same—as it was said to be by his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal—as that formerly under consideration. The words of his former Amendment were a specific and direct order to the Court to do something; they ordered that money paid by the landlord for the tenant right should be repaid to him; the present Amendment merely said there were circumstances under which they were to consider—that was, it would leave the Court free to judge of the whole circumstances of the case. Why should the Government not accept the suggestion if they had entire confidence in their own Court? It was a very fair one, and one that should be accepted by them.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he could not understand what was supposed to be the difference between the position of those who had bought up the Ulster tenant right, under the Act of 1870, and the position of those who would exercise the right of pre-emption under the 1st clause of the Bill. What those who exercised that right would pay would be exactly what those would pay who had bought up the tenant right under the Act of 1870. The tenant would only get the value of his own improvements and his own goodwill in a sale, and every person that made such a purchase under this Bill would be able to sell it again. The Bill placed that particular class of persons in a position in no way different from that of those who exercised the right of pre-emption. The landlord had got the improvements, and they could no longer be charged against him for rent or other purposes; and if he did not choose to recoup himself by adding to the rent, or having the rent assessed by the Court, that was simply because, for some reason or other, he did not think fit to exercise his right in the way that he could. He could not for the life of him see any injustice in it, and it was no reason that the tenant should therefore be deprived of the advantages of the Bill. It would be better to leave the landlord at liberty to recoup himself by charging a higher rent. The matter should be left to the Court. The Government could not agree to the former or present Amendment.

EARL CAIRNS

said, they knew, practically, that purchases of tenant right had not been made by the landlords with a view to increase the rents, but with the object of getting rid of the inconveniences the system inflicted, and giving the landlord the right to choose his tenants. The question their Lordships had to deal with was a short and simple one, and the landlord's right of pre-emption under the 1st clause had nothing whatever to do with it. The landlord had bought up the tenant right under the Act of 1870, for, say, £1,000, that being its selling value in the market. If it again brought £1,000 after this Bill passed, it would have to be decided to whom this £1,000 belonged. It did not belong to the tenant, because he paid nothing whatever for it. It was the landlord who had paid the money. He did not mean to say that there might not be circumstances with regard to subsequent improvements; but it should be for the Court to say how much of that £1,000 should be contributed to the landlord with reference to the purchase he had made, and how much to the tenant in consequence of subsequent improvements or any other item. If the Court was considered competent to settle the rents that should be paid all over Ireland, surely it might be trusted with the decision of this simple matter.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, it would be a great advantage if their Lordships distinctly knew what the effect of the Amendment was. The version given by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) and that given by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley) on behalf of the Government differed. He (the Earl of Camperdown) was in favour of the decision of all land questions, whether raised by the landlord or the tenant being left to the Court, and should, therefore, vote for the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

said, he rose merely for the purpose of noticing an observation made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who stated that the case of the landlord who had bought up the tenant right under the Act of 1870 was on very much the same footing as that of the landlord who might hereafter exercise the right of pre-emption. But was there not this very great distinction? The landlord who after the passing of the Bill exercised the right of pre-emption would do so with his eyes open, and would make such an adjustment of rent to the circumstances of the holding as he might think necessary. But the landlord who had bought up the tenant right relying on the engagement entered into by Parliament in 1870 did not do so with his eyes open. He was hoodwinked by the Act of 1870. He contended, in answer to the argument of his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley), that, in these cases where the tenant right had been bought up, the landlords had, as a rule, not been recouped by increase of rent; they had bought up the tenant right in order to relieve the tenancy of an incubus, and the tenants who had occupied their holdings without having to pay a large sum for "goodwill," in addition to a yearly rent, had clearly gained by the arrangement. It was perfectly reasonable, in his opinion, that the Court should be allowed the discretion of awarding to the landlord what sum he could fairly show he was entitled to.

On question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 171; Not-Contents 46: Majority 125.

CONTENTS.
Beaufort, D.	Exeter, M.
Buckingham and Chandos, D.	Hertford, M.
	Lansdowne, M.
Grafton, D.	Salisbury, M.
Leeds, D.	Winchester, M.
Manchester, D.
Norfolk, D.	Annesley, E.
Northumberland, D.	Bandon, E.
Portland, D.	Bathurst, E.
Somerset, D.	Beauchamp, E.
	Bradford, E.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Cadogan, E.
	Cairns, E.
Abergavenny, M.	Caledon, E.
Bath, M.	Camperdown, E.
Bristol, M.	Carnarvon, E.

Clarendon, E.	Brancepeth, L. (U. Boyne.)
Clonmell, E.
Coventry, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Dartrey, E.
De La Warr, E.	Calthorpe, L.
Denbigh, E.	Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)
Derby, E.
Devon, E.	Castlemaine, L.
Eldon, E.	Chelmsford, L.
Ellesmere, E.	Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)
Ferrers, E.
Feversham, E.	Clinton, L.
Fortescue, E.	Cloncurry, L.
Gainsborough, E.	Colchester, L.
Haddington, E.	Colville of Culross, L.
Hardwicke, E.	Cottesloe, E.
Ilchester, E.	Crofton, L.
Jersey, E.	De L'Isle and Dudley, L.
Lanesborough, E.
Lathom, E. [Teller.]	Denman, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Digby, L.
Lucan, E.	Donington, L.
Lytton, E.	Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.
Macclesfield, E.
Mansfield, E.	Dunsany, L.
Manvers, E.	Ellenborough, L.
Minto, E.	Elphinstone, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)
Nelson, E.	Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
Pembroke and Montgomery, E.
	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Radnor, E.	Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)
Romney, E.
Rosse, E.	Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)
Somers, E.
Sondes, E.	Harlech, L.
Stanhope, E.	Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
Suffolk and Berkshire, E.
	Hatherton, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Howard de Walden, L.
	Inchiquin, L.
Verulam, E.	Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)
Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)	Kenry, L. (E.Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
Cranbrook, V.	Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)
Doneraile, V.	Lamington, L.
Gough, V.	Leconfield, L.
Hardinge, V.	Massy, L.
Hawarden, V. [Teller.]	Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)
Hereford, V.
Hood, V.	Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)
	Mowbray, L.
Lifford, V.	Napier, L.
Melville, V.	Northwick, L.
Sherbrooke, V.	Norton, L.
Sidmouth, V.	O'Neill, L.
Templetown, V.	Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
London, L. Bp.	Plunket, L.
	Poltimore, L.
Annaly, L.	Raglan, L.
Ardilaun, L.	Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Arundell of Wardour, L.
	Rayleigh, L.
Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)	Rowton, L.
Bateman, L.	Sackville, L.
Blackburn, L.	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Borthwick, L.
Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)	Saltoun, L.
	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Brabourne, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)	Tollemache, L.
	Tredegar, L.
Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)	Trevor, L.
	Truro, L.
Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)	Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)
Stanley of Alderley, L.	Ventry, L.
Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)	Vernon, L.
	Vivian, L.
Stratheden and Campbell, L.	Walsingham, L.
	Waveney, L.
Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)	Wentworth, L.
	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
	Wimborne, L.
Talbot de Malahide, L.	Windsor, L.
Templemore, L.	Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)	De Mauley, L.
	Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)
	Foley, L.
Ailesbury, M.	Granard, L. (E. Granard.)
Granville, E.	Greville, L.
Kimberley, E.	Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Morley, E.
Northbrook, E.	Leigh, L.
Shaftesbury, E.	Lyttelton, L.
Spencer, E.	Methuen, L.
Sydney, E.	Monck, L. (V. Monck.)
	Monson, L. [Teller.]
Falmouth, V.	Mount Temple, L.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)	O'Hagan, L.
	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Powerscourt, V.
	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Exeter, L. Bp.
	Ribblesdale, L.
Ampthill, L.	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]
	Sandhurst, L.
Braye, L.	Stafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)
	Sudeley, L.
Carlingford, L.	Suffield, L.
Carrington, L.	Thurlow, L.
Churchill, L.	Wolverton, L.
Clermont, L.	Wrottesley, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments made by the Commons to Lords Amendments in page 3, lines 3 and 4 of sub-section 15, striking out the words "shall be deemed to be made by the tenant;" and in Clause (A), lines 5 and 6, striking out the words, "Any act done by the tenant in contravention of this provision shall be absolutely void," not insisted on.

Lords Amendments in page 4, line 9, leave out from ("tenant") to the end of the clause; and line 25, after ("tenancy,") insert ("after giving to the landlord the prescribed notice,") disagreed to by the Commons, not insisted on.

Lords Amendment in page 5, line 10, leave out from ("soil") to the end of the paragraph, disagreed to by the Commons.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

said, that an important change had been made in the Bill since it left their Lordships' House with reference to the deterioration of holdings, which rendered it necessary that he should move an Amendment to the Commons' Amendments. He wished to leave out the words "the deterioration of the soil" in one part of the clause, and insert them at the end, which would indicate more clearly what was intended. There might be no objection to the landlord having to give notice, or being obliged to do so by the Bill, in case of the deterioration of the soil, which was a matter already covered by the clause; but, as the words stood now, they affected the question of buildings, and it would be impossible for the landlord in all cases to give notice of the deterioration of buildings to the tenant. The tenant, for instance, might destroy a building, and how could the landlord be aware of the fact until it was done? Again, there were many thatched houses in Ireland, and a tenant might burn down such a building; but how was the landlord to be on the spot and give the tenant the notice which was required of him? The notice should only refer to the soil, and should have no application to buildings.

Moved, In page 5, line 10, leave out ("the deterioration of the soil,") and in line 13, after ("notice,") insert ("by the deterioration of the soil.")—(The Marquess of Waterford.)

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, the Government thought it better, if the notice was to be given at all, that the Bill should stand as it was, because the landlord would be in no way injured by it. In cases such as the noble Marquess referred to, the landlord would simply have to give the notice and then proceed under the powers given him by the statute. Any continuance of waste after the notice was given would be sufficient for the landlord to act upon; and he believed that the power given would tend to narrow the controversy between the two parties. Unless the notices were to be given, hard cases might arise, because he could imagine an owner lying by and allowing the tenant to go on in waste without notice, and then suddenly step in and exercise his rights under the Bill.

EARL CAIRNS

said, that a tenant might pull down a house and the landlord might not hear of it until next year. How then could he give the tenant notice? Everyone would admit that the grossest case of waste would be that of the tenant's own house; and he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT

asked whether the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) had ever heard of a tenant pulling down his house? He (Viscount Powerscourt) never had; and even if he had, he should have no objection to such a proceeding. What they complained of was that the tenant built too many houses, such as they were.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that in case of dilapidation by pulling down a house the landlord could insist that the tenant should put it up again.

On question? resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments made by the Commons to Lords Amendment, in page 5, line 15, by striking out in line 4, the words "in addition to," and inserting "otherwise than in substitution for;" and in line 6, leave out from "nor" to "landlord" in line 8.

Moved, "That this House doth agree to the Amendments made by the Commons in the said Amendment."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)

On question?

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

said, that this provision, requiring the consent of the landlord to sub-letting, had been altered by the House of Commons in two respects. The Amendment which he proposed, and which was accepted by their Lordships, provided that no dwelling-house should be erected on the holding in addition to those already existing. That Amendment, which was destined to prevent over-crowding, from which the people in certain parts of Ireland suffered so much, had been altered by the Commons in such a way as now to make it read to the effect that no such house should be erected, except as allowed by the Act, otherwise than in substitution for those already on the holding. He had no objection to that; indeed, he considered it an improvement, because it was never contemplated that the tenant should be pre- vented from pulling down a bad house and building a better one in its place. On the contrary, he was most desirous to promote such an arrangement as that. He regretted, however, that the other House had struck out the words prohibiting any building from being used as a dwelling-house which, at the time of the passing of the Act, was not so used. This was meant only to prevent the tenantry from making use of buildings unfit for occupation as dwelling-houses. It was said that the words left out would have given the landlords opportunities of prying into the private affairs of their tenants. All he could say was that it was rather hard that landlords who did not pay attention to these matters should be accused of indifference, and that if they did they should be set down as Paul Prys and inquisitors. He would not press the point, however, and would assent to the Commons' Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

said, that he must move the restoration of the words struck out by the Commons, if the noble Marquess would not do so. As the Bill stood, a tenant was not allowed to build for his son, his daughter, or a lodger; but he must lodge them in the pigstye. That was the most extraordinary provision he ever heard of. The tenant was prevented from building, and yet he should lodge them in some building on the farm, buildings on Irish farms not being very numerous or very convenient. He believed that the Irish landlords had generally tried to improve the class of dwellings occupied by the tenants; but the Bill encouraged the families of Irish tenants to remain on the farm, but compelled them to live in pigstyes and hovels in the farm-yards if they did so. He was sure the Government did not desire such a state of things to exist, and hoped, therefore, they would consent to replace the words which had been struck out.

Moved, "That this House doth disagree with the Amendment made by the Commons in line 6 of the said Amendment."—(The Marquess of Waterford.)

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, he would remind the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Waterford) that there were ample statutory provisions to meet the case referred to; and they must remember that every breach of these con- ditions, large or small, might be visited with the sentence of loss of the holding by eviction from it. The Amendment would, he thought, tend to make the subject more involved, especially when they remembered that if another family came to live on the farm, and a fresh house was built, or a stable was turned into a dwelling, from that moment an act of sub-division had taken place in the eye of the law. The whole subject required to be very carefully handled, where nothing less than the forfeiture of the tenancy was involved.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, the object of the Government seemed to be to enact statutory conditions for encouraging sanitary offences and overcrowding, as, while they would allow a man to live in a pigstye, a cow-house, or a barn, they would not let him build a new house. He thought they were very ill-advised in adhering to this Amendment, because it intensified and exaggerated one of the worst evils to which the Irish peasant was exposed. But for the clause, it would be possible for the tenant to build an additional dwelling-house, if one were required, for a married son, or for the accommodation of an increasing family; but it was now proposed to adopt an impracticable viâ media, and neither to drive away the surplus population, nor to permit the tenant to provide additional dwellings.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

said, he did not think it was worth while to wrangle over an Amendment of that nature.

On question? resolved in the negative.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments, in page 5, line 32, after ("title") insert ("and which the tenant at the time of the passing of this Act may be entitled by law to cut and remove;") and in line 34, leave out ("may be required") and insert ("the tenant may be entitled to cut in exercise of any right enjoyed by him immediately before the commencement of the statutory term,") to which the Commons have disagreed, not insisted on.

Lords Amendments, in page 5, line 38, after ("game") insert ("as defined for the purposes of the Act twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth Victoria, chapter sixty-seven"); and in line 41, after ("game") insert ("as defined for the purposes of the Act twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth Victoria, chapter sixty-seven,") to which the Commons have disagreed, not insisted on.

Amendment made by the Commons to the Lords Amendment, in page 5, line 43, agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

moved to add wild duck, widgeon, and teal to the description of game to be preserved for the landlords. That would only be placing them in the position they now occupied, and the Government had stated that they had no desire to unduly interfere with the landlord's rights. This was a much more important matter than some people thought, because in some parts of Ireland wild duck, widgeon, and teal were the only wild game to be found, and if the landlord's right to preserve them was taken away it would be a serious matter. He, therefore, hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

Moved, In last line of said Amendment, to leave out ("snipe,") and insert ("snipe, wild-duck, widgeon, and teal.")—(The Marquess of Waterford.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that the birds mentioned were not considered in the Game Act of England as game.

THE MARQUESS or WATERFORD

said, they were considered as game in Ireland, and were always reserved in Irish leases.

On question? resolved in the affirmative.

Lords Amendment, in page 6, line 1, leave out ("persistently"), disagreed to by the Commons.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

moved to omit the word "persistently," and insert instead thereof the word "unreasonably." The clause as it stood would enable a number of tenants to combine together and obstruct the landlord, although they did not persistently do so.

Moved, To leave out the word ("persistently") in the said Amendment, and insert ("unreasonably.")—(The Marquess of Waterford.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

opposed the alteration. He thought the word "persistently" was much better than the word "unreasonably."

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, there might be a conspiracy amongst several tenants to commit this offence, and the word "unreasonably" would strike at that, while "persistently" might not.

On question? resolved in the negative.

On the Motion of The LORD PRIEY SEAL Lords Amendment not insisted on.

Lords Amendment, in page 6, lines 3 and 4, after ("sub-section,") insert— ("During the continuance of a statutory term, all mines and minerals, coal, and coal pits, quarries of limestone and other stone and slate, gravel and sandpits, woods and underwoods, and all hogs and bog timber, turbaries for cutting turf, and rights of turbary, except such of the said rights as the tenant, under the contract of tenancy subsisting immediately before the commencement of the statutory term, was lawfully entitled to exercise, shall be deemed to be exclusively reserved to the landlord,") — disagreed to by the Commons.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR,

in moving that the House do not insist on the Amendment, said, it was open to the objection that it was not desirable to put in the Bill that which was entirely unnecessary in point of law.

Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons hath disagreed."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

moved that so much of the Amendment as related to mines and minerals, coals and coalpits should be retained in the Bill. As regarded the remainder of the Amendment, he did not think it was necessary.

Moved, To leave out from ("coalpits,") in line 3, of the said Amendment, to ("shall") in line 8.—(The Marquess of Waterford.)

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, he could not understand what was the noble Marquess's reason for making such a proposal. There could be no doubt that the landlord's property was fully protected, and that these words were wholly unnecessary.

On question? resolved in the affirmative.

Lords' Amendment, as amended, insisted on.

Lords Amendment, in page 6, line 8, leave out ("consequent on an increase of rent by the landlord"), disagreed to by the Commons.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

moved that the House insist on the Amendment. If the words were left out, the only effect would be that those landlords who had not gone through the qualifying process of asking an increase of rent would have the same privileges in. respect of resumption which were conferred by the clause as those would have who had gone through that process. He was unable to understand why the fact of a landlord having raised the rent should be regarded as a special qualification for the resumption of his holding, or any portion of it, for the purposes specified in the sub-section.

Moved, To insist on the Amendment in page 6, line 8, to which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, that the Government could not consent to the omission of the words. Their appearance in the place where they were found in the clause was a mere matter of drafting to make a necessary reference to the 7th clause. They had no force in connection with the place where they appeared, any further than pointing out where the real question they were intended to deal with was situated. If necessary at all, that was not the proper place to make such an Amendment as that desired by the noble Marquess.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

thought the clause would read perfectly well without them.

On question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 113; Not-Contents 37: Majority 76.

CONTENTS.
Beaufort, D.	Annesley, E.
Buckingham and Chandos, D.	Bathurst, E.
	Beauchamp, E.
Leeds, D.	Bradford, E.
	Cairns, E.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Carnarvon, E.
	Clonmell, E.
Abergavenny, M.	De La Warr, E.
Bristol, M.	Denbigh, E.
Exeter, M.	Eldon, E.
Hertford, M.	Ferrers, E.
Salisbury, M.	Feversham, E.
Winchester, M.	Fortescue, E.

Gainsborough, E.	Digby, L.
Haddington, E.	Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.
Ilchester, E.
Lanesborough, E	Dunsany, L.
Lathom, E. [Teller.]	Ellenborough, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Elphinstone, L.
Lucan, E,	Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
Lytton, E.
Mansfield, E.	Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)
Mount Edgcumbe, E.
Nelson, E.	Harlech, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E.	Hartismere, L. (L. Hennicker.)
Redesdale, E.	Howard de Walden, L.
Romney, E.	Inchiquin, L.
Rosse, E.	Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)
Sondes, E.
Stanhope, E.	Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)
	Leconfield, L.
Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty)	Massy, L.
	Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)
Cranbrook, V.
Doneraile, V	Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)
Gough, V.
Hawarden, V. [Teller.]	Mowbray, L.
Hereford, V.	Northwick, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Norton, L.
	O'Neill, L.
Lifford, V.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Melville, V.
Templetown, V.	Poltimore, L.
	Raglan, L.
Ardilaun, L.	Rodney, L.
Arundell of Wardour, L.	Rowton, L.
	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)
Bateman, L.	Saltoun, L.
Blackburn, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Borthwick, L,
Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Brabourne, L.	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)
	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Castlemaine, L.	Strathspey, L (E. Seafield.)
Chelmsford, L.
Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)	Templemore, L.
	Tollemache, L.
Clinton, L.	Trevor, L.
Cloncurry, L.	Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)
Colchester, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Ventry, L.
Crofton, L.	Walsingham, L.
De L'Isle and Dudley, L.	Wentworth, L.
	Windsor, L.
Denman, L.	Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Derby, E.	Ampthill, L.
Granville, E.	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]
Kimberley, E.
Morley, E.	Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)
Northbrook, E.
Shaftesbury, E.	Carlingford, L.
Spencer, E.	Carrington, L.
	Churchill, L.
Falmouth, V.	Emly, L.
	Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)
	Granard, L. (E. Granard.)
Exeter, L. Bp.

Greville, L.	Ribblesdale, L.
Leigh, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Lyttelton, L.	Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Methuen, L.
Monson, L. [Teller.]	Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Monteagle of Brandon, L.
	Sudeley, L.
O'Hagan, L.	Suffield, L.
Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)	Thurlow, L.
	Truro, L.
Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)	Wolverton, L.
	Wrottesley, L.

Resolvedin the affirmative.

On the Motion of The Earl of DONOUGHMORE, Lords Amendment, in page 6, line 27, leave out from ("as") to ("prohibits") in line 33, disagreed to by the Commons, insisted on.

Lords Amendment, in page 6, line 37, leave out from ("land") to ("From") in page 7, line 27, disagreed to by the Commons.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

contended that their Lordships should insist on amending the clause in the direction of their previous Amendment limiting the scale of compensation. He would, therefore, move that the provisions regulating the higher scale of compensation which had been struck out of the Bill by their Lordships, but re-inserted by the Commons, should be again struck out, with the intention of subsequently moving the introduction of a more moderate scale.

Moved, To insist on the Amendment in page 6, line 37, to which the Commons have disagreed.—[The Earl of Donoughmore.)

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, that, having accepted the principle of compensation for disturbance, he did not think it worth while for the noble Earl to insist upon this particular Amendment, contesting it now. Although the Government expected that compensation for disturbance would have small effect under the provisions of the Bill, as it would probably not affect many holdings, they desired that, whenever for any reason it might be brought into operation, it should be in the shape now proposed—that was, should be effective. The Government had proceeded on the authority of many of the Judges who administered the law, some of whom recommended a larger increase in the scale than was now proposed.

THE EARL OF PEMBROKE

asked whether these opinions were got before or after the introduction of the present Bill?

EARL SPENCER

replied, that these opinions were given in the evidence before the Land Commission.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that the cases to which the Judges had referred were cases in which the incoming tenant had induced the landlord to get rid of the outgoing tenant by a promise to pay compensation. That was to say, it was worth the incoming tenant's while to pay a slight additional rent, and also compensation for the disturbance induced by eviction. It was evident that under the present Bill, with the right of free sale existing, the bargain would have taken place directly between the parties, and no question of eviction would have arisen. Those opinions, therefore, had been given under a totally different state of things from that which would arise under the Bill. He wished to add that, in his opinion, the upper portion of the proposed scale of compensation was wholly uncalled for by the present state of Ireland. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal had confessed that the provision of compensation for disturbance was a more decided violation of principle than anything in that Bill.

LORD CARLINGFORD

explained his statement to be that the principle of compensation for disturbance was in principle a greater interference with the landlord than the necessity now laid upon him of recognizing the sale of tenancies.

On question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 100; Not-Contents 39: Majority 61.

CONTENTS.
Beaufort, D.	Cairns, E.
Buckingham and Chandos, D.	Carnarvon, E.
	Clonmell, E.
Leeds, D.	Dartrey, E.
	De La Warr, E.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Eldon, E.
	Ferrers, E.
Abergavenny, M.	Feversham, E.
Bristol, M.	Gainsborough, E.
Exeter, M.	Haddington, E.
Hertford, M.	Ilchester, E.
Salisbury, M.	Lanesborough, E.
Winchester, M.	Lathom, E. [Teller.]
	Leven and Melville, E.
Annesley, E.	Lucan, E.
Beauchamp, E.	Lytton, E,

Mansfield, E.	Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
Nelson, E.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E.	Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)
Redesdale, E.	Harlech, L.
Rosse, E.	Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
Sondes, E.
Stanhope, E.	Howard de Walden, L.
	Inchiquin, L.
	Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)
Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)
	Leconfield, L.
Cranbrook, V.	Massy, L.
Gough, V.	Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo)
Hardinge, V.
Hawarden, V. [Teller.]	Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)
Hereford, V.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Mowbray, L.
	Northwick, L.
Templetown, V.	Norton, L.
	O'Neill, L.
	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Ardilaun, L.
Arundell of Wardour, L.	Poltimore, L.
	Raglan, L.
Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)	Rodney, L.
Bateman, L.	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Blackburn, L.
Borthwick, L.	Saltoun, L.
Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Castlemaine, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Chelmsford, L.	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)
	Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)
Cloncurry, L.
Colchester, L.	Talbot de Malahide, L,
Crofton, L.	Templemore, L.
Denman, L.	Tollemache, L.
Digby, L.	Trevor, L.
Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.	Ventry, L.
	Walsingham, L.
Dunsany, L.	Wentworth, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Windsor, L.
Elphinstone, L.	Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Bath, M.	Carlingford, L.
Lansdowne, M.	Carrington, L.
	Churchill, L.
Camperdown, E.	Emly, L.
Derby, E.	Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)
Kimberley, E.
Morley, E.	Granard, L. (E. Granard.)
Northbrook, E.
Shaftesbury, E.	Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
Spencer, E.
	Leigh, L.
Falmouth, V.	Lyttelton, L.
Sherbrooke, V.	Methuen, L.
	Monson, L. [Teller.]
Exeter, L. Bp.	O'Hagan, L.
	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Ampthill, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)	Ribblesdale, L.
	Sandhurst, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)	Suffield, L.
	Thurlow, L.
Strafford, L.(V. Enfield.)	Truro, L.
	Waveney, L.
Sudeley, L.	Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative.

On the Motion of The Earl of Do-NOUGHMORE, clause amended as follows:—In page 6, line 37, insert— ("And the said section three shall hereafter be read as if from such section were omitted the words 'for the loss which the Court shall find to be sustained by him by reason of quitting his holding,' so that the said section shall be road as providing that the tenant therein mentioned shall be entitled to such compensation as the Court, in view of all the circumstances of the case, shall think just, subject to the scale of compensation hereinafter mentioned. The compensation payable under the said section three in the case of a tenant disturbed in his holding by the act of a landlord after the passing of this Act shall be as follows, in the case of holdings— Where the rent is thirty pounds or under, a sum not exceeding seven years' rent; Where the rent is above thirty pounds and not exceeding fifty pounds, a sum not exceeding five years' rent; Where the rent is above fifty pounds and not exceeding one hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding four years' rent; Where the rent is above one hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding three years' rent, but in no case shall the compensation exceed five hundred pounds. Any tenant in a higher class of the scale may, at his option, claim compensation under a lower class, provided such compensation shall not exceed the compensation to which he would be entitled under such lower class on the assumption that the rent of his holding was reduced to the sum (or where two sums are mentioned the higher sum) stated in such lower class.")

Lords Amendment, in page 8, line 15, leave out from the second ("landlord") to ("may") in line 17, disagreed to by the Commons, not insisted on.

EARL CAIRNS

said, that the Bill, as it was originally introduced, did not give the landlord access to the Court unless he proposed to raise the rent. Their Lordships, however, being of opinion that both parties should have equal access, made the Bill read that the Court might be approached by the tenant, or by the landlord and tenant jointly, or by the landlord; and the Commons had struck out the addition which extended the right to the landlord. It was proposed in the other House, at a time when the Amendment could not be entertained, to make the clause read, "or by the landlord if the parties have otherwise failed to come to an agreement;" and he should propose to make that Amendment now, on the ground that it was necessary to do equal justice to landlord and tenant. It was a most invidious position for the landlord that he should have to demand an increase of rent before he could have access to the Court, which should be equally open to him as to the tenant. Still believing in the justice of their contention he hoped the House would agree to his present proposition.

Moved, To leave out from ("after") inline 15, to ("may") in line 17, and insert ("if the parties have otherwise failed to come to an agreement.")—(The Earl Cairns.)

EARL SPENCER

said, that in the other House the Government, in order to put the landlord and tenant on a more perfect footing of equality, had been willing to insert certain words varying somewhat slightly from those just proposed; but considerable importance was attached to that variation. The Forms of the House, however, prevented those words being proposed; but he now submitted them—namely, "or having otherwise failed to agree with the tenant as to what a fair rent is." The view of the Government was that, in the beginning, the parties did not stand on an equal footing; that the landlord had considerable advantages over the tenants in various ways, including the advantage of the possession of a large purse, and therefore the Government admitted the equity of the position taken up by the Commons. The Government were anxious to encourage the landlord and tenant to settle these matters out of Court, if possible; in fact, they considered it was only a part of the landlord's duty to do so. They therefore proposed that they should do so by means of the words originally inserted.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,

while sympathizing with the Government in their desire that the parties should endeavour to arrange without coming to the Court, preferred the words of his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns), in order to meet the case where the tenant was in a state of hostility to his landlord, excited by outside parties.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

having spoken in favour of the original words,

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he thought it would be unfortunate if the Government insisted that where landlord and tenant could not come to an agreement in consequence of some external influence operating on the tenant, the landlord should be forced to demand an increase of rent in order to open the doors of the Court to himself. It would simply add unnecessarily to the bitterness between the two parties. Again, there were many reasons why a landlord might like to have his rent fixed by the Court, although he did not want to increase his rent. For instance, he might wish to have it fixed for purposes of sale.

On question? resolved in the affirmative.

Lords Amendment, in page 8, line 20, leave out from ("parties") to second ("and") in line 21, disagreed to by the Commons.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he must now ask the House to insist upon the Amendment in the 7th clause, which provided that a tenant of a present tenancy, or the tenant or landlord jointly, might apply to the Court from time to time to have a fair rent fixed, and that the Court might fix such rent after hearing the parties, and "having regard to the interests of the landlord and tenant respectively." The matter was one to which considerable importance was attached in Ireland. He proposed to leave out the words, "having regard to the interests of the landlord and tenant respectively." He freely admitted that these words had had no special sense attached to them; and if they were used in an English Bill they would not excite very much remark. But there was no doubt that when they were introduced in the House of Commons, though they did not excite very much feeling on the part of the Government at the time, and were described as being merely sentimental, yet, when they became more generally known, it was felt that they implied something more than at first sight appeared. This Bill had, more than any other Bill with which he was acquainted, reference to public opinion in the community with which it had to deal; and the words in question were to be viewed not only with reference to their precise legal effect, but also with reference to their operation in the minds of those to whom they ap- plied. There was no doubt that, innocent as these words appeared, they raised very considerable apprehension among the landowners, especially in the North of Ireland, and he believed all over the country, that when brought before the Court, and when they had to operate on the minds of the Judges, they would have an effect most prejudicial and detrimental to the just rights of the landlord in the way of reducing his "fair rent." The belief entertained was that their effect would be to establish a species of right destructive of the rights of the landlords and tend to mislead the Judges. They were in the nature of an instruction to the Court to take care of the interests of the plaintiff and the defendant respectively; and such a recommendation to any ordinary Court of Law in England would be considered, if not as an insult, at least something more than unnecessary. It was dangerous to make provisions which the state of the law did not absolutely require, and in which an occult meaning was sure to be looked for, as the Government had, in the course of these discussions, perpetually reminded them. It was well to consider this in dealing with Commissioners who certainly would constitute a very remarkable anomaly in the history of British law, and it was especially wise to consider it in dealing with a matter so delicate as that of the rights of landlord and tenant respectively. No good reason could be shown for the insertion of the words; and as the landlords would be put in a very unusual position by the subjection of their rights to this qualification, it seemed to him that their Lordships would do well to adhere to their Amendment.

Moved, To insist on the Amendment in page 8, line 20, to which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, his thanks were due to the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), because he had made his (Lord Carlingford's) speech for him. The noble Marquess had recognized the fact that the Government, in acceding to the insertion of those words in the clause, and desiring to retain them now as a convenient exposition of the general directions given to the Court as to the way it was to deal with the question, did not do so with the view of adding anything to the purview and principle of the Bent Clause. The noble Marquess's argument was that the insertion of the words excited alarm on the part of the landlords; but the Government urged that their omission would cause alarm in the minds of another and much larger class in Ireland—namely, the tenants, and in the present condition of that country the danger of alarm was beyond all comparison greater in the case of the tenant than of the landlord. The tenant class was the class they desired to secure and calm, not only by the legal provisions of the Bill, but in feeling. The mind of the great but poor tenant class was much more likely to be seized with groundless alarm than that of the landlord class. He was convinced that within the next few months this groundless panic would pass away from the minds of both; but if there must be alarm, it was far safer that the tenant class should not be the class to be alarmed. For this reason, he claimed the speech of the noble Marquess as an argument in favour of retaining the words, in order to escape for a time the alarm which would be attended with the most serious consequences.

THE DUKE OF ABERCORN,

in supporting the Motion, said, he thought the retention of these words would be followed by the most serious consequences, and that the alarm of the landlords was by no means groundless. If the Bill, as it professed, only extended the Ulster tenant right custom to the rest of Ireland, although that would not be fair to those landlords on whose estates it had not been practised, it would be less open to objection; but it enlarged the custom into unknown quantities, and extended something much more injurious to the landlords. The custom had never interfered with a fair rent; it had been a thing outside the rent; it did not affect the rent, and was not affected by it. True, a very unfair rent would materially affect the tenant right of a farm; but a very unfair rent per se without reference to the tenant right could be satisfactorily regulated by the Land Court. The words contained in the clause were contrary to the whole spirit and principle of the Ulster tenant right custom; and the effect of it might be very injurious, in that the rents of the landlords might be eaten up. The more lenient a landlord had been and the lower his rents had been, the higher the tenant right was upon his estate, and the greater would be the fine imposed upon him in the diminution of his income. The clause would have the effect of inducing a new tenant to give a preposterous price for the tenant right in the hope that that might induce the landlord to reduce the rent. The words objected to were not in the Bill originally; they were accepted by Mr. Gladstone without any hesitation whatever, on the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), who was a strong tenant right advocate. To show that the idea was not in the mind of Mr. Gladstone, but that it was contrary to his views, he would refer their Lordships to a speech by Mr. Gladstone, in which the Prime Minister said it would be better to deal with the tenants' interest, without mentioning the landlords' interest, and to deal with rent without mentioning the tenants' interest; that if they were mentioned together it would give rise to the idea that they were opposed to each other, and that it was their business to prevent the growth of the mischievous notion that there was a direct conflict between the landlord's interest in the rent and the tenants' interest in his holding. These words were in accordance with the Amendment of the noble Marquess; and the Prime Minister, in accepting those words and putting them into the Bill, under pressure from the Irish Members, had shown another of those changes of front of which he was so great a master. At the risk of wearying the House, he (the Duke of Abercorn) would state a case which had actually occurred to him, and which might be multiplied elsewhere. On a farm of his, a tenancy-at-will, at a fair moderate rent—£94 a-year—an incoming tenant, two or three years ago, gave £2,700 for the tenant right. The interest on that, at the lowest rate, was £112 a-year. The tenant came and said—"My interest on my holding is £112 a-year. The interest to my landlord is £94." What would the landlord receive in that case, and what would the Court decide under the words of the clause as to the rent payable? He hoped their Lordships would assent to the Amendment of the noble Marquess.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he had heard with surprise the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Abercorn), and he could not help thinking that his arguments were of a very unfortunate description. The words found fault with were that the Court was— To take into account all the circumstances of the case, and amongst other things to have regard to the interests of the landlord and tenant respectively; and nothing could be more clearly just. Did the noble Duke mean to say that the tenant had no interests to which regard should be paid? What he would have a right to was his improvements, and he would also have a right to the fixity of tenure which this Bill would give him. He (the Lord Chancellor) should have thought, therefore, nothing was more clear in this world than that the tenants had rights to which regard must be had, as much as to the interests of the landlord. These words—"having regard to the interests of the landlord and tenant respectively," had no tendency whatever to define the interests of the tenant any more than the interests of the landlord; to put them in any way whatever in opposite scales, or make them in any degree antagonistic to each other. They pointed out, in the only way possible, that the tenant had interests as well as the landlord, and a more baseless argument than that which seemed to deny it he could not conceive. The words were absolutely legal, strictly impartial, and entirely just so far as they were material; in fact, he was unable to conceive any that were more so, and to insist on striking them out was to aid and feed alarm instead of removing it. The words did not suggest ever so remotely any scale in which the one interest was to be put against the other. They merely laid down the duty of the Court, to look impartially to both. That appeared to be perfectly fair, and he owned that if there was any conceivable argument against the words it was that they were so obviously just and right that their insertion was unnecessary. But the arguments of the noble Duke showed that they were necessary, for they did not recognize any interest of the tenant. They thought it absolutely wrong to do so. ["No, no!"]

THE DUKE OF ABERCORN

explained that he had plainly recognized that interest; but he objected to it as an element in the determining of the rent.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that was the very object of these words—to consider what should be the rent. On the one hand, the landlord's just rights ought not, in his (the Lord Chancellor's) opinion, to be in the slightest degree cut down or derogated from by the greater or lesser amount which the tenant might be able to get in the market without the concurrence of the landlord; and, on the other hand, in his humble opinion, it would be equally unjust to increase the rent, because the tenant was able to bring to the market his tenant right as a marketable and valuable commodity. On the one side and on the other, it would be the duty of the Court not to lay a rent upon the tenant, because of the value of the tenant right in the market; and, on the other hand, not to deduct from the landlord a rent justly due, because of the value of the tenant right in the market. On both sides it did appear to him that these words pointed to nothing but the doing of pure and simple justice; and those who objected to them suggested to simple minds the idea that pure and simple justice was not acceptable to them. ["No, no!" from the Opposition.] It was in the interests of noble Lords themselves that he pointed that out, as nothing was more likely to call in question their motives and purposes. It might not be their object; but it was the effect of what they were doing. He, therefore, thought that it would be very unwise on the part of their Lordships to leave the words out.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

said, that the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) had stated that these words should be retained out of simple justice to the tenant; but he would tell their Lordships that they would, if retained, result in the very greatest injustice being done to the landlords of Ireland. The tenants were amply protected under the Bill. His complaint was that they directed the Court, in fixing the rent, to take into consideration the tenant's interest in his holding. He maintained that these words would force the Court, after finding out what a fair rent was, to reduce it by the interest upon the amount the tenant had paid for his tenant right; a provision that would, sooner or later, reduce rents to a minus quantity. The noble Lord (the Lord Privy Seal) had spoken of the alarm of the tenants; but he (the Marquess of Waterford) could answer for the tenants that they could feel no alarm under the Bill, for they had no reason to fear; but, on the other hand, the landlords would have great reason. Their rents would be reduced under this Proviso by the growth of the tenant right, and in process of time they would be completely ruined, if not entirely wiped off the face of the earth, because each time a statutory term was fixed the rent would be reduced, and the tenant right increased; and the lower the rent the higher would be the tenant right. If no directions were introduced the Court would proceed to settle the rent according to the usage in Ulster, where the amount paid for tenant right was never taken into consideration. He hoped their Lordships would strike out the words.

VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT

opposed the Amendment on the ground that it touched not only the tenant right introduced by the Bill, but also the tenant right of Ulster. He regretted that noble Lords opposite took so cynical a view of tenant right, which had its market price, and, instead of being artificially restricted, ought to be left to the operation of the law of supply and demand. Unless the Bill granted tenant right, and unlimited tenant right, it would be practically useless. Ireland wanted quietness and peace, and to attain this state depended entirely upon granting an unlimited tenant right to the Irish tenant. He, therefore, thought that the retention of the words would be most useful, and that they would incur a serious responsibility in omitting them.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

said, that he wished to say a very few words in justification of the vote which he should give. He did not think the words could fitly be called neutral—far from that being so, they had a distinct significance. The reference to the landlord's interest was, indeed, little more than surplusage, because it would be impossible to fix rent without a reference to that interest. The words in question, however, were inserted with the object of introducing a reference to the tenant's interest, and they would, he apprehended, be regarded by the Court as mandatory and induce it to create an interest of that kind, even where such an interest had not existed hitherto. He pointed that out on the occasion of the Bill coming before their Lordships for a second reading. Since then, however, the Bill had been read a second time, and, as he took it, they were committed to the principle of the Bill as a tenant right Bill, and indeed something very like an unrestricted tenant right Bill. It had always seemed to him idle to suppose that there could be tenant right of that description without its existence tending ultimately to diminish the rent of the landlord. It was all very well for the Lord Privy Seal to assert that the rent and the tenant right might exist side by side. They might, he would acknowledge, do so at the outset; but, in the long run, economical forces would assert themselves, and it would be found that the tenant right tended to prevent the landlord from obtaining a legitimate increase of rent; while, on the other hand, if there were a fall of agricultural produce, the effect of tenant right would be to throw the whole of the loss on the landlord's shoulders. Those were the inevitable consequences of the creation of tenant right; but they had created it all over Ireland, and so they must look the matter in the face. It was idle with one hand to give tenant right to every tenant in Ireland, and with the other to take back any of the incidents which properly belonged to it. They should have the courage of their opinions; and as, by voting the second reading of the Bill, they had accepted the principle of tenant right, they ought to support Her Majesty's Government in resisting any attempt to deprive that custom of what he believed to be an inseparable incident. In The Arabian Nights, a story was told of a fisherman who, one day, brought up from the sea in his net a carefully stoppered bottle. He took out the stopper, and there emerged an enormous monster who had been imprisoned in the bottle for a long time, and who most ungratefully at once threatened to destroy his liberator. The fisherman asked as a last favour before he died that he should be shown the way the monster got into the bottle. The monster then went into the bottle, upon which the fisherman put in the stopper, and, for aught he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) knew, it had remained there ever since. Now, it seemed to him that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) and his Friends opposite had consented to take out the stopper and had liberated the monster; but there was this difference between that particular monster and the monster of the present day, that the latter would not go back into the bottle. They must, therefore, submit with the best grace they could to the consequences of what they had done; and, having that opinion, he should support the Government in. resisting the Amendment.

THE EARL OF ANNESLEY

said, he had been informed that the opinion of one of the most eminent Queen's Counsel in the North of Ireland was that if these words were retained they would bring ruin to every landed owner on whose property tenant right existed.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH,

though not attaching much importance to the words, the effect of which he considered had been over-rated, could not help thinking that it would be better to leave them out.

On question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 133; Not-Contents 61: Majority 72.

CONTENTS.
Beaufort, D.	Lathom, E. [Teller.]
Buckingham and Chandos, D.	Leven and Melville, E.
	Lucan, E.
Leeds, D.	Lytton, E.
Manchester, D.	Macclesfield, E.
Norfolk, D.	Mansfield, E.
Northumberland, D.	Manvers, E.
	Mount Edgcumbe, E.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Nelson, E.
	Pembroke and Montgomery, E.
Abergavenny, M.
Bath, M.	Redesdale, E.
Bristol, M.	Romney, E.
Exeter, M.	Rosse, E.
Hertford, M.	Sondes, E.
Salisbury, M.	Stanhope, E.
Winchester, M.	Verulam, E.
Annesley, E.	Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)
Bandon, E.
Bathurst, E.	Cranbrook, V.
Beauchamp, E.	Doneraile, V.
Cadogan, E.	Gough, V.
Cairns, E.	Hardinge, V.
Caledon, E.	Hawarden, V. [Teller.]
Carnarvon, E.	Hereford, V.
Clonmell, E.	Hood, V.
Coventry, E.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)
De La Warr, E.
Devon, E.	Melville, V.
Eldon, E.	Templetown, V.
Ellesmere, E.
Ferrers, E.	Annaly, L.
Feversham, E.	Arundell of Wardour, L.
Gainsborough, E.
Haddington, E.	Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)
Lanesborough, E.	Bateman, L.

Blackburn, L.	Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo)
Borthwick, L.
Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)	Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)
Brabourne, L.	Mowbray, L.
Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)	Northwick, L.
	Norton, L.
Brodrick, L.(V. Midleton.)	O'Neill, L.
	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Castlemaine, L.
Chelmsford, L.	Plunket, L.
Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)	Poltimore, L.
	Raglan, L.
Clinton, L.	Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Cloncurry, L.
Colchester, L.	Rayleigh, L.
Colville of Culross, L.	Rodney, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Rowton, L.
Crofton, L.	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
De L'Isle and Dudley, L.
	Saltoun, L.
Denman, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Digby, L.
Donington, L.	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.
	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Dunsany, L.	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Ellenborough, L.
Elphinstone, L.	Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)
Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
	Talbot de Malahide, L.
Gage, L. (V. Gage.)	Templemore, L.
Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)	Tollemache, L.
	Trevor, L.
Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)	Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)
Harlech, L.	Ventry, L.
Hartismere, L.(L. Benniker.)	Walsingham, L.
	Wentworth, L.
Howard de Walden, L.	Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)
Inchiquin, L.
Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)	Wimborne, L.
Leconfield, L.	Windsor, L.
Massy, L.	Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Powerscourt, V.
	Sherbrooke, V.
Grafton, D.	Exeter, L. Bp.
Ailesbury, M.	Ampthill, L.
Lansdowne, M.	Belper, L.
	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller]
Camperdown, E.
Dartrey E.	Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane)
Derby E.
Granville, E.	Calthorpe, L.
Jersey, E.	Carlingford, L.
Kimberley, E.	Carrington, L.
Minto, E.	Churchill, L.
Morley, E	Clermont L.
Northbrook, E.	Clifford of Chudeligh, L.
Shaftesbury, E.
Spencer, E.	Emly, L.
Suffolk and Berkshire, E	Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)
	Granard, L. (E. Granard.)
Falmouth, V.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)	Greville, L.
	Hatherton, L.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)	Ribblesdale, L.
	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
	Sandhurst, L.
Leigh, L.	Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Lyttelton, L.
Methuen, L.	Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Monck, L. (V. Monck.)
Monson, L. [Teller.]	Sudeley, L.
Monteagle of Brandon, L.	Suffield, L.
	Thurlow, L.
Napier, L.	Truro, L.
O'Hagan, L.	Vernon, L.
Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)	Waveney, L.
	Wolverton, L.
Ramsay, L. (E. Salhousie.)	Wrottesley, L.

Resolved in the affirmative.

Lords Amendment, in page 8, line 23, after ("rent,") insert— ("Provided always, that whore application is made to the court under this section in respect of any tenancy, and the court is of opinion that the tenant of the holding in which such tenancy subsists, or his predecessors in title, has or have caused or suffered such holding to become deteriorated, contrary to the express or implied conditions constituting the contract of tenancy, the court may refuse the application, or may postpone the further hearing of the same until after the performance by the tenant of such conditions as the court may think proper,") —disagreed to by the Commons.

THE EARL OF PEMBROKE,

in proposing to insist on the Amendment, said, he proposed to leave the words ("or his predecessors") and ("or have") out of the Proviso on this occasion. The only objection the Government made to the Amendment was that it was surplusage, its object being already provided for by the general powers given in the Equities Clause. He thought the surplusage argument came badly from a Government that were always ready to indulge in it when it was the tenant's interest that required protection. And he could not admit that it was unnecessary, or understand how anyone who knew the state of Ireland could believe that the Courts would have to refuse a man a statutory term on account of the condition of his farm, merely because they were permitted, though not enjoined, by the Act to do so. But if the Government were right in their view on this point, they were more than ever bound to insert the proposed provision as a warning to the tenant, who would otherwise go with light heart and a shabby farm to get his rent fixed, and be equally astonished and disappointed at the refusal by the Court of a statutory term. The Irish landlords had a right to claim protection under this Bill that deprived them of the power to protect themselves. The Bill was going to do a vast amount of harm. Let them, at least, do a little good; and, seeing the amount of harm the Bill was certain to do, it would be a great relief if they were allowed to do a little good by the insertion of the Amendment.

On the Motion of The Earl of PEM-BROKE, Amendment amended, by leaving out, in line 5, the words ("or his predecessors in title,") and ("or have.")

Moved, To insist on the Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed, as now amended.—(The Earl of Pembroke.)

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, he thought the Amendment was unnecessary, for a farmer who had farmed badly would be much more likely to get his holding into good condition again when he had obtained a statutory term than he was before, in order to avoid the penalties of the Act. The Government would adhere to the words of the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that the one great sin in agriculture was allowing a holding to deteriorate. Therefore, he considered this a very important point. They ought to prevent the tenant from deteriorating his farm with the view of getting a low rent fixed. They were really offering a direct reward to the tenant to do that which it was their policy and their object to prevent.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

considered that the 8th clause gave ample protection, and objected to fettering the hands of the Court.

On question?

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, he would not put their Lordships to the trouble of dividing.

Resolved in the affirmative.

Lords Amendment, in page 8, line 35, leave out from ("landlord") to the end of sub-section ("3,") disagreed to by the Commons.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,

in moving that the Amendment be insisted on, said, he proposed to further amend it by the omission of all words after the words "statutory conditions" in line 34, as he considered it was a provision that was most objectionable, and would prevent, in many cases, the resumption of a holding by a landlord for the space of 33 years. If the Amendment were agreed to, the sub-section would read as follows:— Where the judicial rent of any present tenancy has been fixed by the court, then, until the expiration of a term of fifteen years from the next rent day, such present tenancy shall be deemed to be a tenancy subject to statutory conditions. The following part of the sub-section would be omitted:— And having the same incidents as a tenancy subject to statutory conditions consequent on an increase of rent by a landlord, with this modification, that, during the statutory term in a present tenancy consequent on the first determination of a judicial rent of that tenancy by the court, application by the landlord to authorize the resumption of the holding or part thereof by him for some purpose having relation to the good of the holding or of the estate shall not be entertained by the court, unless (a) such present tenancy has arisen, at the expiration of a judicial lease, or of a lease existing at the time of the passing of this Act, and originally made for a term of not less than thirty-one years; or (b) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that before the passing of this Act the reversion expectant on the determination of a lease of the holding was purchased by the landlord or his predecessors in title with the view of letting or otherwise disposing of the land for building purposes on the determination of such lease, and that it is bonâ fide required by him for such purpose. The expediency of the clause as amended was so necessary that he hoped the Government would not think it necessary to divide the House against it. The landlord ought to have the full right of resumption, not only for the good of the country, but for civilization itself. He could not imagine any provision more hostile to the progress of the country; and, unless the Amendment were agreed to, it would be next to impossible to extend what were now growing towns in various parts of Ireland; and he, therefore, earnestly hoped that the Government would not insist upon the insertion of the words which would in very many cases prevent resumption altogether.

Moved, To amend the said Amendment of this House, to which the Commons have disagreed, by leaving out, in addition, all the words after ("statutory conditions,") in line 34; and to insist on the Amendment as amended.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, the Government could not agree to the proposal of the noble Marquess.

EARL SPENCER

said, he rose to point out the great difference between the Bill as it stood at present, and the Bill as it came up from the Commons. That fact seemed to be overlooked during the discussion. The modification in question had been introduced to meet some of the hardships which had been brought before their Lordships a few evenings since, and which it was then generally admitted ought to be removed. It appeared to him that what the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) wanted was that the landlord should have a power of resumption at any time; but he (Earl Spencer) thought it was not right that the landlord should have the power of resumption in all cases, and the modifications in the Commons showed that the other House were willing to meet the views of that House to a very great extent.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

said, the Bill admitted that, on certain conditions, the landlord should have a power of resumption, and while he was sorry they had not gone a little farther, he thought the Amendment of the Government a fair compromise, and one of great value; and he would not, therefore, push his opposition to the clause any further. He could not, however, quite understand the position of the Government as regarded resumption, for the provision referred to in the Amendment deprived the landlord of the power of resumption for 15 years, and that deprivation seemed really to be giving to the tenant the perpetuity of tenure the existence of which had always been denied in the Bill.

On question?

The House being cleared for the Division.

EARL GRANVILLE,

remaining seated, said, he would not put their Lordships to the trouble of dividing. It was clear that noble Lords opposite were prepared to follow the lead of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) whenever he desired it; and he would not, therefore, impose upon their Lordships a needless trouble. He said this because he wished their Lordships to understand that if the Government did not divide the House on the Amendment and on the numerous Amendments of the noble Marquess, it was not because they agreed with them, but because it was useless to divide in the present state of the House, and to give their Lordships the needless trouble of walking out and in to the House again every few minutes.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that the remark of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) seemed to imply that his Friends would follow him (the Marquess of Salisbury) blindly in the course he was taking. He could assure the noble Earl they were as incapable of following him blindly, as he was incapable of acting without due consultation with them.

Resolved in the affirmative.

Lords Amendment, in page 9, line 14, leave out ("may, if it think fit,") and insert ("shall, if the landlord so requires,") disagreed to by the Commons, not insisted on.

Lords Amendment, in page 9, line 16, amendedby the Commons as follows:—In lines 6 and 7, after "made," insert "and substantially maintained;" and after "landlord," leave out "or," and insert "and."

On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, Commons Amendments to the said Lords Amendment further amended, by substituting the words ("or acquired, and have in the main been upheld" for ("and substantially maintained;") leaving out ("and,") and inserting ("or;") and in line 8, after ("not,") inserting the words ("made or acquired.")

Lords Amendments, in page 9, line 39, leave out from (" term ") to ("in") in line 41, and insert ("and on any such application no rent shall be made payable;") and in line 42, after ("title,") insert ("during such statutory term,") disagreed to by the Commons, and which were further amended, so as to restore the sub-section (8) as follows:— 'No rent shall be allowed or made payable in any proceedings under this Act in respect of improvements made by the tenant or his predecessors in title, and for which in the opinion of the court, the tenant or his predecessors in title shall not have been paid or compensated by the landlord or his predecessors in title, —not insisted on.

Moved, At end of the sub-section add— ("Provided that the court shall take into consideration the time during which such tenant may have enjoyed the advantage of such improvements, and also the rent at which such holding has been held, and any benefits which such tenant may have received from his landlord in consideration, expressly or impliedly, of the improvements so made.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, that he could not accept the Amendment, for nothing was more important in the whole range of the Bill than that security should be given to the tenant for the value of his improvements. In England they could scarcely realize what was meant by an Irish tenant making permanent outlay upon another man's land. For the interest of all parties, everything should be done to induce the tenant to invest labour and capital on his holding with as much confidence as if the land were his own. If he did he would confer the most essential benefits not only upon himself, but upon the landlord and the country. The Government believed the provision was now in the best shape by far that it had yet attained, and they thought it better not to confine this provision for the security of tenants' improvements to future settlement of rents, to apply it also to the first settlement under the Bill. He thought the words at present contained in the Bill were quite sufficient to meet the object in view, and they fully secured the landlord against injustice.

On question? resolved in the affirmative.

Lords Amendment, in page 9, after line 42, insert as a new sub-section— (9.) 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, otherwise than to the landlord, on coming into the holding, —disagreed to by the Commons, not insisted on.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, though it had been decided against, he still remained of opinion that, in some form or other, the principle of his Amendment should be adopted. He should, therefore, propose to move some other words, which he thought would place in more precise form the entire independence which he wished to secure between the rent and the price given for the holding. The point he wished to secure was that, apart from other considerations, the price given for the holding should not affect the rent either one way or the other. Let the improvements by all means affect the rents as much as they would; but the price given for the holding, whether it varied up or down, ought to have nothing to do with the amount which the landlord had the right to demand for judicial rent, and that in the interest of the tenant no less than of the landlord. It seemed to him that there was no safety for either party unless these two elements were left absolutely apart. He was glad to observe that the Prime Minister had held distinctly the language that the rent would not be affected by the price given for the holding. That might be to the interest of the tenant no less than of the landlord. The tenant might go to the landlord and say—"I have given a great deal for this holding; you must reduce my rent accordingly." But another operation was likely to occur. There would be in the market a mass of saleable holdings; they would fetch less than hitherto; and the landlord might say that, as a tenant paid less than hitherto for his holding, he ought to have his rent raised accordingly. He wished to exclude that operation just as much as the other. He would therefore move an Amendment to the effect that the amount paid for the holding should not of itself, apart from other considerations, be deemed to be a ground for increasing or reducing the rent.

Moved, To insert, in lieu of the new sub-section inserted by the Lords after line 42, to which the Commons have disagreed, the following words:— (The amount of money or money's worth that may have been paid or given for the tenancy of any holding by a tenant or his predecessors in title otherwise than to the landlord or his predecessors in title shall not of itself apart from other considerations be deemed to he a ground for reducing or increasing the rent of such holding.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, he must point out to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that under those words there would still be cases in which it might be the duty of the Court to consider, as a part of the facts of the case, the price that the tenant had given to his predecessor. He did not, of course, mean that the rent was to be reduced, because the tenant in question had chosen to give any extravagant or any particular price to his predecessor for the tenant right; but those payments would con- stantly cover and represent the permanent improvements on the farm; and, taking it in that way, it might be quite possible that unless they took the utmost care in framing those words they should contradict their own convictions with respect to the sanctity of the tenant's improvements. If he had bought them of his predecessor, he was in the same position as if he had made them himself. It was conceivable that the rent might afterwards be raised so as to confiscate these improvements. The Court, in fact, might find that the existing rent had been in part a charge upon the value of those improvements. It was difficult to frame an Amendment of this kind, and in the opinion of the Government it was totally unnecessary. They meant to adhere to their own form of words. The noble Marquess had not dealt with the case formerly put to him of a payment being made by the incoming tenant with the distinct privity of the landlord.

On question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 138; Not-Contents 61: Majority 77.

CONTENTS.
Beaufort, D.	Haddington, E.
Buckingham and Chandos, D.	Hardwicke, E.
	Lanesborough, E.
Leeds, D.	Lathom, E. [Teller.]
Manchester, D.	Leven and Melville, E.
Norfolk, D.	Lytton, E.
Northumberland, D.	Macclesfield, E.
Portland, D.	Mansfield, E.
	Manvers, E.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Mount Edgcumbe, E.
	Nelson, E.
Abergavenny, M.	Pembroke and Montgomery, E.
Bristol, M.
Exeter, M.	Radnor, E.
Hertford, M.	Redesdale, E.
Salisbury, M.	Romney, E.
Winchester, M.	Rosse, E.
	Sondes, E.
Annesley, E.	Stanhope, E.
Bandon, E.
Bathurst, E.
Beauchamp, E.	Clancarty, V.(E. ClanCarty.)
Bradford, E.
	Cranbrook, V.
Cadogan E.	Doneraile, V.
Cairns, E.
Caledon, E.	Gough, V.
Carnarvon, E.	Hawarden V. [Teller.]
Clonmell, E.	Hereford, V.
Coventry, E.	Hood, V.
De La Warr, E.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)
Denbigh, E.
Devon, E.	Melville, V.
Eldon, E.	Sidmouth, V.
Ellesmere, E.	Templetown, V.
Ferrers, E.
Feversham, E.	Annaly, L.
Gainsborough, E.	Ardilaun, L.

Arundell of Wardour, L.	Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo)
Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)	Moore, L.(M. Drogheda.)
Bateman, L.	Mowbray, L.
Blackburn, L.	Northwick, L.
Borthwick, L.	Norton, L.
Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)	O'Neill, L.
	Oranmore and Browne,
Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)	L.
	Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
	Poltimore, L.
Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)	Raglan, L.
	Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Castlemaine, L.
Chelmsford, L.	Rayleigh, L.
Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)	Rodney, L.
	Rowton, L.
Cloncurry, L.	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Colchester, L.
Colville of Culross, L.	Saltoun, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Crofton, L.
Denman, L.	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Digby, L.
Donington, L.	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.
	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Dunsany, L.	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Ellenborough, L.
Elphinstone, L.	Strathnairn, L.
Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)	Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)
Gage, L. (V. Gage.)	Talbot de Malahide, L.
Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)	Templemore, L.
	Tollemache, L.
Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)	Tredegar, L.
	Trevor, L.
	Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)
Harlech, L.
Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)	Ventry, L.
	Walsingham, L.
Howard de Walden, L.	Wentworth, L.
Inchiquin, L.	Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)
Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)
	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)
Lamington, L.	Wimborne, L.
Leconfield, L.	Windsor, L.
Massy, L.	Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Suffolk and Berkshire, E.
	Sydney, E.
Grafton, D.
	Falmouth, V.
	Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen)
Ailesbury, M.
Bath, M.	Powerscourt, V.
Lansdowne, M.	Sherbrooke, V.
Camperdown, E.	Exeter, L. Bp.
Derby, E.
Granville, E.	Ampthill, L.
Jersey, E.	Belper, L.
Kimberley, E.	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]
Minto, E.
Morley, E.	Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)
Northbrook, E.
Shaftesbury, E.	Calthorpe, L.
Spencer, E.	Carlingford, L.

Carrington; L.	O'Hagan, L.
Clermont, L.	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
De Mauley, L.
Emly, L.	Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)
Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)	Ribblesdale, L.
Granard, L. (E. Granard.)	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Greville, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Hatherton, L.	Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
	Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Monnt-Earl.)
	Sudeley, L.
Leigh, L.	Suffield, L.
Lyttelton, L.	Thurlow, L.
Methuen, L.	Truro, L.
Monck, L. (V. Monck.)	Vernon, L.
Monson, L. [Teller.]	Waveney, L.
Monteagle of Brandon, L.	Wolverton, L.
	Wrottesley, L.

Resolved in the affirmative.

Lords Amendment, in page 11, line 12, leave out from ("and") to ("considering") in line 14, disagreed to by the Commons, insisted on.

Lords Amendments, in page 13, lines 81 and 32, leave out ("immediate landlord for the time being,") and insert ("landlord being a limited owner"); and in line 34, leave out ("next superior"), and after ("being") insert ("succeeding to him in estate"), disagreed to by the Commons.

EARL CAIRNS,

in moving that the Amendments be insisted on, maintained that as, on the termination of a lease, the tenant ought to give up possession to the landlord, still more did that principle apply to middlemen, under whom other persons were in possession of the land.

Moved, "That this House doth insist on the said Amendments made by this House, to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Earl Cairns.)

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, it was quite impossible to except sub-tenants from the whole of the provisions and protection of the Bill, which would be the effect of the Amendment. The subtenants in question would have been lawfully created under leases which did not forbid sub-letting; and the superior landlord in these cases would, by his own act, have been a party to the creation of sub-tenants.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

remarked, that the Government, by their arguments, seemed to proceed on the assumption that the interests of the landlord were of the very smallest importance, and need not be considered. When those leases were originally granted, what was there to induce the landlord to believe that, in 1881, there would arise such a political power as would force the Government to abandon all principles of political economy, and set aside the rights of property which had hitherto been held good? It was impossible that he could have foreseen such a contingency and taken precautions against it. Therefore, the superior landlord was dealt with in a peculiarly hard manner by the provisions of the Bill for acts which had been committed by the middlemen.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) reproached Her Majesty's Government with not considering the interest of the landlords. He was bound to say, on behalf of his Colleagues in "another place," that they had, in the late discussions, tried to draw a just balance between the landlords and the tenants, and had, in the interests of the landlords, opposed a great many propositions which were made against them. On the other hand, he (Earl Granville) was not aware that the noble Marquess had moved a single Amendment or delivered a single speech in favour of the tenants.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he thought it would be unwise to reject the Commons' proposal. The only argument which they had heard from the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) in favour of the Amendment was, that when, many years ago, the leases were created, the landlord did not foresee that any such Bill as this would be introduced into Ireland. Of course, they did not; but political circumstances which until that evening, he thought, had been recognized by the majority of their Lordships, had made it seem necessary for the social good of that country that the occupying tenants should have the advantages intended for them by this Bill; and what their Lordships were really asked to do was to take a large number of tenants holding under middlemen leases entirely out of the benefit of the Act. To omit a large class of these occupying tenants was to exhibit a total forgetfulness of all the objects and principles of the Bill. He sincerely hoped their Lordships would not persevere with this Amendment.

On question? resolvedin the negative.

Commons Amendments to Lords Amendment, in page 14, after Clause 15, insert Clause (B), and which Amendments were as follows:—In line 2, insert "in common with other persons "in lines 3 and 4, leave out "in common with other persons;" in lines 5 and 6, leave out "which right is in this section referred to as a common right;" and in line 14, insert "express or implied"—agreed to.

Lords Amendment, in page 14, line 13, leave out from ("the") to the end of the clause, and insert— ("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"). —not insisted on.

Lords' Amendment, in page 15, leave out sub-section (3), not insisted on.

Lords Amendment, in page 16, line 9, leave out from("Provided")to("that"), in line 14, disagreed to by the Commons, and section restored with Amendments, as follows:— Provided that at the expiration of such existing leases the lessees, if bonâ fide in occupation of their holdings, 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; but this provision shall not apply where a reversionary lease of the holding has been bonâ fide made before the passing of this Act; and provided also that where it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Court that the landlord desires to resume the holding for the bonâ fide purpose of occupying the same as a residence for himself, or as a home farm in connexion with his residence, or for the purpose of providing a residence for some member of his family, the Court may authorise him to resume the same accordingly, in the manner and on the terms provided by the fifth section of this Act with respect to the resumption of a holding by a landlord: Provided always, that if the holding so resumed shall be at any time within fifteen years after such resumption relet to a tenant, the same shall be subject, from and after the time of its being so relet, to all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to present tenancies.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE,

in moving to insist on the Lords' Amendment, said, he would remind their Lordships he had moved it when the Bill was in Committee, and he saw no sound reason why it should not be insisted upon. If a landlord wished to covenant in his lease for a right of re-entry at the expiration of the term, he should be allowed to exercise that right, and deal with the tenancy in such a manner as appeared just to him in the interests of the estate.

Moved, To insist upon the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, he wished to remind their Lordships of the changes which the Government had introduced into the provision under consideration. The matter had been very carefully considered with a view to provide against the difficulty of hard cases that might arise as against the landlords, and what they had done was this.—They had, first of all, attached to these cases the landlord's right of resumption for reasons founded on the good of the holding or estate, or for public purposes as defined in the Bill; but they had gone further than that, because they now proposed to provide that the landlord, at the termination of the existing lease, should have the right, under the sanction of the Court, to resume the farm, either for the purpose of his own residence, or for the purpose of a home farm, or for the use of any member of his family. They believed it would be difficult to conceive a case of hardship which would not be sufficiently met by the clause in its present form. He thought, on the other hand, that if the Amendment was persisted in, a great injustice would arise under certain circumstances.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he should vote with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) if he persisted in his Motion. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) wished to point out that there were three objects which a lessor might desire in reference to his land when a lease fell in. He might desire to take the management of the land into his own hands; he might desire to have it for building purposes; or he might desire to re-arrange and re-let it, with a view to its being cultivated in a more remunerative manner. He could not allow that the clause, even with the alterations that had been introduced into it as regarded the landlord's power of resumption, satisfied the just claims of the landlords. It was said that the ten- ants of Ireland were in a condition of status, and not in one of contract, and by that statement the Government justified their interference in the relations between landlord and tenant. But the tenants who would be affected by the Amendment had deliberately taken themselves out of the condition of statusand put themselves into that of contract, most of them being as competent to contract as the Members of that House. To give in these cases special rights of occupancy to persons who had solemnly engaged to restore the land to the lesser at the end of their leases would be very unjust. Words might possibly be introduced into the Bill by which to distinguish between landlords who would suffer hardship under this clause and those who would not.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

thought there were two points of view from which this clause must be looked at—one, the Imperial point of view, and the other the Irish. As regarded the Imperial point of view, he quite agreed with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that it was iniquitous that contracts entered into between parties able to contract should be allowed to be broken up, and that the right of re-entry at the termination of a lease should be done away with. However, from an Irish point of view, the great difficulties and injustices which the clause presented would be got over, more or less, by the arrangement now proposed by the Government, because a landlord would not be prevented from regaining possession of a holding at the end of a lease, if he wished to do so for his own occupation, and would only be prevented from doing so, if he wished to let the holding to a tenant with a view of making him a future tenant. For himself, he could not see any great difference between a present and a future tenant; and, therefore, he hoped that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would not press his Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that if the Amendment were adopted their Lordships would be refusing to lessees out of Ulster rights analogous to those which would still exist in the Province.

EARL CAIRNS

said, he was in favour of the Lords' Amendment to the clause.

THE EARL OF COURTOWN

supported the Government.

On question? resolvedin the affirmative.

Lords Amendment, in page 16, leave out lines 24 to 36 inclusive, disagreed to by the Commons, not insisted on.

On the Motion of The EARL CAIRNS, the following Amendment addedto the end of sub-section as restored:— ("Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Court in any proceedings under this section may appeal to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland, and the decision of such Court of Appeal shall he final and conclusive.")

Lords Amendment, in page 19, line 12, leave out from ("who") to ("pay") in line 14, disagreed to by the Commons, not insisted on.

On Commons consequential Amendment:—Line 18, at the end of sub-section (3) insert— ("The condition as to three-fourths of the number of tenants may he relaxed on special grounds with the consent of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, but so that in no case less than half the number of tenants shall be able and willing to purchase.")

EARL CAIRNS

said, the necessity for the consent would hamper the Commissioners; but he looked upon this part of the Bill as illusory, because there was another clause which made the Treasury masters of the subject. They knew very well that the Treasury would not grant the money. The provision that a certain number of tenants should agree to purchase was also a pure delusion; because if the Commissioners went and asked the tenants if they desired to buy, they would naturally ask the price they would have to pay, and the Commissioners would not be able to tell them.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) had made a new discovery—namely, that the administrative words in the Bill which were intended to give certain powers to the Treasury gave it the power to dictate. Were they to be told that this part of the Bill had been made illusory and fictitious on purpose? Such a suggestion was one that ought not to be made in that House. The Government intended that this part of the Bill should be as operative as any other part of it. They regarded it as a very important matter, and great care had been taken in framing the clause. It was not to be supposed that the Government would allow the Treasury to dictate to them the policy they were to pursue.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, no imputations were made as to the intentions of the Government; but what they said was that the Treasury, in the exercise of the power given to them, would practically defeat the object of the clause. If he was not mistaken, it was the Treasury who defeated the Bright Clauses in the last Land Act, for they were rendered inoperative by the jealousy of the Board of "Works in Ireland, which Board was, in reality, under the control of the Treasury. The Government might be superior to the power of the Treasury; but he doubted it very much, and he should watch with great interest how they worked these clauses. They might not desire to make these clauses illusory; but they certainly had not shown much zeal in their efforts to make them effective. It was only by creating a large number of tenant proprietors in Ireland that they could create that conservative feeling which was so greatly wanting; and unless Her Majesty's Government could approach the subject in a spirit worthy of its importance, he feared they would never advance a single step towards the end they had in view—namely, making the Irish people attached to the English Government.

EARL SPENCER

said, Her Majesty's Government attached as much importance to the Purchase Clauses as the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) seemed to do, and they had shown their earnestness by what they had done on this subject. He hoped that these clauses would be more operative than the Bright Clauses of the Act of 1870, and he believed that that would be the case, as the purchases would not be made in the ordinary way in the Encumbered Estates Court. One of the reasons why the Bright Clauses of the last Act failed was because there was nobody properly appointed to make purchases which had to be effected through the Landed Estates Courts. Under the Irish Church Act no such difficulty arose, and he should be very much surprised if the Treasury succeeded in defeating the objects the Government had in view.

Commons' consequential Amendment agreed to

Lords Amendment, in page 25, leave out sub-section (1) and (2) of Clause 31, disagreed to by the Commons.

LORD EMLY

asked how the Court could possibly satisfy itself as to the prospects of the purchasers, and moved to omit the words after the word "loss."

Moved, That this House doth not insist on the Amendment made by this House in page 25, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose in line 16, to leave out from ("loss") to the end of the sub-section.—(The Lord Emly.)

On question? resolvedin the affirmative.

Lords Amendments, in page 31, line 1, after ("may") insert— ("In case it thinks fit, 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 and may;") and in line 7, after ("such") insert (" matter or"), disagreed toby the Commons.

Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments made by this House in page 31, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose, as a consequential Amendment, in line 6, after ("Ireland,") to insert— ("The Land Commission may also, in case it thinks fit, 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; provided that no appeal from the Land Commission to the Court of Appeal in Ireland shall be permitted in respect of any matter arising under Part V. of this Act, or in respect of any decision as to the amount of fair rent, or any question of value or of damages, or any matter left in the discretion of the Land Commission.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On question? resolvedin the affirmative.

Lords Amendments, in page 37, line 31, leave out from ("Act") to ("and") in line 34, disagreed toby the Commons, not insisted on.

Lords Amendment, in page 37, leave out lines 22 to 30, disagreed toby the Commons; and which sub-section, having been restored, had been amended as follows:— Whenever within six months after the passing of this Act any action or other proceed- ing shall be pending or be instituted 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 or proceeding is pending, if satisfied that such judicial rent will be fixed within a reasonable time, not exceeding in any case three months, shall have power, upon such terms and conditions as the court may think fit, to stay the sale, under any writ of execution, or any process in such action or proceeding, of the tenancy in respect of which such application is pending, until the termination of the proceedings to fix such judicial rent, or the expiration of three months, whichever shall first happen.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,

in moving that their Lordships should disagree with the Amendment as amended, said, it was the last Amendment with which their Lordships had to deal when in Committee upon the Bill, and it was the Amendment known as Mr. Parnell's, with respect to suspending proceedings until after the fixing of a judicial rent. That Amendment had been somewhat modified in the House of Commons; but it had not affected the objectionable character of the clause itself. Under the clause six months were allowed, and no one who owed money and who claimed a judicial rent could be proceeded against within that period. But how was the Court in which the debt was sued for to know where the tenant might be? In the first place, it meant that all creditors would have to go without their money for nine months, which, in many cases, would be a great trial; and the other result would be that for the first six months the Court would be blocked by those who asked for a judicial rent simply to delay payment of these debts, and that whether they were entitled to a reduction or not. There was nothing in the clause to compensate for these monstrous evils, and he hoped the House would disagree with the Commons' Amendment.

Moved, "That this House doth insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, he did not think the merits of this proposal ought to be prejudiced by attaching to it, as the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had done, the name of Mr. Parnell. He thought it was a mistake to give colour to, and prepare a bad reception to, a proposal that came from the other House by attaching to it the name of a Member of that House.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

explained that he had no intention of securing for the proposal either a good or a bad reception by mentioning the name of Mr. Parnell. He mentioned Mr. Parnell's name just as he had mentioned Mr. Bright's name in connection with other clauses, as a convenient way of indicating a well-known clause.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, the Government believed the clause rested on a reasonable foundation, especially now that the term during which the Court might delay processes had been limited to three months. It was merely applying to processes in the Superior Courts a principle which their Lordships had already accepted with reference to proceedings in the Inferior Courts. The provision which the Government wished to see retained in the Bill amounted, as far as the landlord was concerned, to nothing more than a postponement. There was no question of a loss of rent. Nay, it was highly probable that the landlord would be more likely to be paid the arrears due to him if the provision were allowed to stand than if it were not.

EARL CAIRNS

said, that the provision was altogether one-sided, and would work much injustice. It was not a question of the landlord only, but of all the creditors, and having to wait for several months might be bankruptcy to some. If they were to protect the tenant against his creditors, they ought to protect the creditors against other suitors.

LORD DENMAN

said, if the fixing of the rent were delayed, the tenant would be unable to satisfy any of his creditors, and a decision must cost money.

On question? resolvedin the affirmative.

Moved, "That a Committee be appointed to prepare Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to certain of their Amendments, and insisting on certain of the Lords Amendments."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

EARL GRANVILLE

Her Majesty's Government agree to the Motion which has been made by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), and which will be a matter of course in consequence of the proceedings of this evening. I think that perhaps your Lordships would consider it presumptuous on my part—and I do not know whether I should be doing any good—if I were to insist much on my own great regret, not as a Member of the Government, but as an individual Member of this House, at the constant and continuous manner in which your Lordships on the Opposition side of the House have shown this evening how little you have been influenced on this great and important question by the declarations of the opinions of the immense majority of the Representatives of the constituencies of the United Kingdom. But I may be allowed to say, and this is more agreeable to me, that I have derived considerable satisfaction from the fact with regard to several of my noble Friends behind me—Peers who have been strongly opposed to this measure, which has caused considerable difficulty to the Government in promoting it, and who have expressed their views with great ability—that at this stage of the Bill their conduct has been in marked contrast to that of the noble Marquess and of noble Lords opposite. I cannot help thinking that their conduct has been more logical, more consistent with the course which your Lordships began by taking—more consistent, in fact, with the reasons which the noble Marquess himself adduced in support of the contention that your Lordships should give a second reading to this Bill, and, I may add, more Conservative in the true sense of the word.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I do not know that it is consistent with the ordinary practice of your Lordships' House that, when you have come to resolutions on important matters, which have been fully debated, and when the determination of your Lordships has been arrived at and recorded, you should be subjected to something which, for want of a better name, I cannot but call a scolding from the noble Earl who leads this Assembly. My Lords, I believe that in the course you have taken this evening you have acted in strict consistency with the principles which you have avowed from the beginning. You have not interfered with the main principle of the Bill. You have merely sought to protect individuals and individual interests from hardship and oppression which were threatened against them by the action of the Bill. You have sought, in more than one instance, to make the Bill more exactly conformable to the arguments by which it has been recommended to you from the Treasury Bench, and to the declarations by which it was introduced. Above all—and this has been the scope of nearly all the Amendments on which your Lordships have insisted—you have sought to keep the Bill in the same shape in which Her Majesty's Government, on their own responsibility, introduced it to the House of Commons as a Bill to which they had then given the fullest attention, and which they believed to be adapted to meet the circumstances of the case. My Lords, your objections, made, as I think, not in any spirit of antagonism to the Bill, have not been met by a corresponding spirit indicating a desire either to respect your Lordships' opinions, or to promote an amicable and conciliatory settlement of the question. But such as the conduct of the Government has been in respect to this Bill, and such as the conduct of your Lordships has been, the conduct both of the Government and of your Lordships must be submitted to the judgment of the country, which is superior to both, and the country will recognize in your action a desire to protect individual right and time-honoured legal and Constitutional principles against violent innovation and temporary passion, which has been the principal function from the first of your Lordships' Chamber, and which I trust to the end you will boldly and manfully fulfil.

On question? resolved in the affirmative.

The Committee to meet forthwith.