Lords Sitting of 16 May 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Jubilee Service in Westminster Abbey, appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Metropolis Management (Battersea and Westminster) * (101).
Second Reading—Quarries (83); Police Force Enfranchisement (77).
Committee—Irish Land Law (58).

QUARRIES BILL.—(No. 83.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SUDELEY,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he wished to explain that the object of the
2
Bill was merely to oblige quarries dangerous to the public in open and unprotected land, or within 50 yards of a highway or public resort, to be securely fenced for the prevention of accidents. He wished further to say that county Coroners had constantly reported a number of fatal accidents arising from this cause, and also that the Bill had passed through the House of Commons.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Sudeley.)
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he rose to oppose the Motion, on account of the looseness of the definitions of a quarry, as an opening in the ground from which stone had been taken. In Wales, where there were walls and no hedges, every farm had a small quarry. The definitions went on to include sand holes and gravel pits, which were not dangerous, and mentioned openings from which clay had been taken—that is to say, ponds. In Cheshire, and parts of

3
the adjoining counties, almost every field had a marl pit, if not two or three of them. These ponds required to be kept open for cattle. Even if they were railed in, that would not keep out children; neither would poles, which, being constantly stolen, so as to leave gaps, be any protection to children, who would get through or under any fence.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a.

POLICE FORCE ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.—(No. 77.)
(The Earl of Harrowby.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he believed that the measure would meet with the acceptance of their Lordships. He trusted their Lordships would give it a favourable consideration on the ground that it was one of the very comparatively small company of Bills which had as yet reached them from "another place" that Session. Including Provisional Orders only 21 Bills had yet come up from the other House to their Lordships; whereas, he understood that their Lordships had forwarded 54 to the other House. The present Bill had had the support of three Secretaries of State, and upon its own merits also, it well deserved a second reading. Soldiers, sailors., Revenue officers, and postmen, all now had the right to exercise the franchise, and it was only fair and just that that right should be extended to the Police Force. He, therefore, hoped their Lordships would give the Bill a second reading. The police, as a rule, were respected by all but the evildoers. There was no body of men in this country who were more law-loving and more worthy of the great trust of the franchise, and there was reason to believe that they felt deeply the fact of their being deprived of it. He would conclude by moving the second reading of the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Bill; but he confessed that he thought it required a
4
very great deal of consideration. The nature of the duties of the police were such as to make it a serious question whether it was consistent with those duties whether they should be admitted to the franchise. He admitted that, as a body, the police would bear a not unfavourable comparison with other classes who now possessed the franchise; but supposing that, at a contested election, there was a disturbance in which the police were called upon to act for the restoration of order, surely, it would be better that that duty should be performed by a body of men taking no part in the election, and quite independent of either Party, than by a body of men who took part in the contest, and were interested on one side or the other. He called attention to the position of soldiers in the Army as being a case analogous to that of the police.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he wished to point out that the Royal Irish Constabulary were not included in the Bill, although every word which had been said in praise of the Police of Great Britain could be said with greater force in favour of the Royal Irish Constabulary, to whom not only the Government, but every respectable man, woman, and child in Ireland, owed a deep debt of gratitude. He was sure that by their omission from the provisions of that Bill, there was no intention of casting a slur on that excellent body of men; but he trusted that they would hear from the Government that it was their intention, at the earliest opportunity, to introduce a Bill dealing separately with the Royal Irish Constabulary and putting them on an equal footing with their brethren in England and Scotland.
LORD BRABOURNEgave a warm support to the Bill, but said, that he only rose in consequence of the remark of his noble and learned Friend (the Earl of Selborne) with regard to soldiers. With great submission to the noble Earl, he would remind him that recent decisions in the Registration Courts had established the right of soldiers to vote at Parliamentary Elections, if duly qualified. What this Bill proposed to do was, not to give votes to men because they were policemen, but to enact that, if otherwise duly qualified, they should not be disfranchised on account of their being policemen.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he wished to explain that his remarks were not applied to policemen generally, but only to those who might be on duty during elections.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

INDIA—THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT —EXPROPRIATION OF ZEMINDARS AT ARNI GHAT, MUSSOORIE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in rising to present a Petition; and to ask the Secretary of State for India, If it was true that at Mussoorie there were three men in possession of a cultivatory holding of 200 bighas, at a fixed rent of Rs.5 to Rs.8 a-year, and of very considerable value. The land was taken away by Government under the Land Acquisition Act, and Mr. Laidman assessed the compensation to be given. In the result he awarded Rs.3,300 to the person entitled to receive the rent, and Rs.2,400 to the tenants, and out of this Rs.2,400 he gave all but Rs.900 to the creditor of one of the tenants, so that the three, who wore formerly in a position of comparative opulence, were turned out upon the world as beggars; and, if it is true, whether he will direct that these men be compensated; also, if he will inquire whether Mr. Laidman's Court was one duly qualified under the Land Acquisition Act for hearing the case; and whether the public notices and proclamations required by the Act had been made; also to ask the Secretary of State if he will inquire into the conduct of the Lieutenant Governor of the North-West Provinces, Sir Alfred Lyall—(1) in respect to the Arni Ghat expropriation; (2) his ordering Mr. Laidman to prosecute Captain Hearsey; (3) his promotion of Mr. Laidman after the trial; (4) the secret Circular to his judicial subordinates commenting adversely on the judgment of the Chief Justice? said, according to the Notice, he had the honour to present a Petition from Captain Hearsey, asking for redress on account of the acts of the Lieutenant Governor of the North-West Provinces. Captain Hearsey's family had been attainted in 1745 on account of the presence of some of them at the Battle of Culloden. Since then they had settled in India, and 10 of his rela-
  6
  tives had served in the Indian Army. His father was General Sir J. B. Hearsey, who played a considerable part in the Mutiny. The case which he had to lay before the House consisted of two separate complaints—first, with regard to the spoliation of the Arni Ghat Zemindars for the purpose of providing a better botanical garden for Mussoorie; and, secondly, with respect to the conduct of Sir Alfred Lyall, as it arose out of the spoliation of these Zemindars. The noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cross) would not be able to deny the description of the injury suffered by these Zemindars given in the Notice Paper, because these words were taken from the summing up of the Chief Justice in a trial arising out of the first wrong done to the Zemindars. This Chief Justice was then the Chief Justice at Allahabad, and he had since become the Chief Justice of Calcutta. The wrong done to the three brothers who owned Arni Ghat was that they were forcibly deprived, under the Land Acquisition Act, of land and houses valued at Rs.22,000 for a nominal sum of Rs.5,700. That this sum was entirely inadequate was clear from the fact that the three assessors of all the parties agreed in stating that this property, which was irrigated, could produce 400 maunds of wheat per annum besides other crops. At the price for wheat in the locality, at 20 years' purchase—the basis laid down in the Land Acquisition Act—this gave Rs.20,000 and Rs.2,000 for the houses on it. Another proof consisted in the fact that the old discarded botanical garden had since been sold for Rs.10,000; yet it must have been inferior to Arni Ghat, or it would not have been abandoned for Arni Ghat. There was yet a further injustice done to these unfortunate Zemindars. A certain mohunt or priest had a chief rent of Rs.5 on Arni Ghat, the payment of which should have been continued by the Government on behalf of the botanical gardens, as would have happened in the case of a Scotch for or an English chief rent; or the chief rent might have been extinguished at 25 years' purchase, which would have been Rs.125; but, instead of that, Mr. Laid-main, the Judge of the Small Causes Court which settled this case, assigned Rs.3,300, or the larger half of the purchase money—Rs,5,700—to the mohunt

  7
  or owner of the chief rent of Rs.5. He must explain an apparent discrepancy between Rs.5 and the Rs.5 to Rs.8 a-year mentioned by the Chief Justice. By the deed—of which he had in his hand a translation—
  "The high priest and ruler and chief mohunt of the Gurn Guddee, by name Saroop Dass, gave a grant by deed of the village of Ami Ghat to Dilloo, for which the ruler of the Gurn Guddee shall receive year by year the sum of Government rupees five only. If any Zemindar shall disturb or annoy Dilloo (in his possession) the ruler (of the Gurn Guddee) shall fine that individual: all other claims (with the exception of the five rupees) are given absolutely and free by the ruler of the Gurn Guddee."
  The other Rs.3 referred to by the Chief Justice as occasionally given were a "nuzzur," or voluntary offering to the priest. The motive alleged for this gratuitous injustice was that this mohunt was in the habit of lending elephants, carriages, and other conveniences to Indian officials. Of the remaining sum of Rs.2,400, the Judge assigned the greater part to the creditors of one of the three brothers or owners, and he also ordered Rs.234 to be deducted for Government costs, though it was said that this was contrary to the Land Acquisition Act, and some Rs.900 was all that was left for the owners. It might be asked why the three dispossessed Zemindars did not avail themselves of their right of appeal? It was the extreme poverty to which they were reduced which deprived them of this resource. They had not the means to fee counsel to place their case before the High Court. Captain Hearsey's letter says of the eviction, after the decree of Mr. Laidman—
  "In the beginning of November, 1882—the men had refused, at my advice, to quit their houses and homes—the superintendent of the Dhoon sent for all the males of the village to his office, which was in Mussoorie, about four miles off, and, as in duty bound, they attended. It was a cold winter day, alternate heavy showers of sleet and rain deluged and froze the earth, the wind cut like a razor. During the absence of the men, at the order of the local authorities, certain Mahomedan coolies, Awghanies, broke open their doors, thrust the women and children out into the cold winter blast, and pitched their clothes, bedding, cooking utensils, and stores of food after them into the rain and sleet. When the men returned late in the afternoon from the superintendent's office, they found their women and children waiting in the open in the soaking rain for their arrival, their winter store of food damaged by rain, and they and their wives and little ones homeless and shelterless. I believe for that night they
  8
  took shelter in the Barlow-gunj bazaar—a small bazaar belonging to a member of our family. This is the action of the myrmidons of the State landlord, the Government of India."
  This description might possibly remind their Lordships of the Glenbeigh evictions; but there was this difference—the person who caused those evictions was owed five years' rent, and would have taken half-a-year's rent, so that he was evicting for a 10th part of what was his own; but the Government of the North-West Provinces had evicted for what was not their own, and for which they had not paid a 22nd part. He was sure that his noble Friend the late Secretary of State for India would not defend this eviction, because he and others were pledged by their Leader to the doctrine that evictions justified the Plan of the Campaign. He was not aware that there was any record of any public utterances of the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India as to evictions; but he was too faithful and devoted an adherent of the Prime Minister to separate himself from his policy; and he only asked the noble Viscount to carry out in India the admirable provision of the Land Bill for Ireland, which would shortly be before the House, for paper evictions by legal process converting a tenant into a caretaker, and that no actual evictions should take place in India under the Land Acquisition Act until all the appeals had been heard and the cases legally concluded. There were two things which the India Office might suggest to the Secretary of State in answer to the case he had now stated. One was, that the three brothers were not the owners, but only occupancy tenants; and the other, that whatever was done to them was done in due course of law. It would be a mere quibble, which the Secretary of State would not succeed in inducing anyone to believe, to assert that a chief rent of Rs.5 constituted the owner of it the owner of the whole property; or considering the deed granting Ami Ghat in perpetuity for a chief rent of Rs.5, that the owner of the chief rent had any further interest in or claim to interference with the property; or that persons owning land in perpetuity, subject to the trifling chief rent of Rs.5, were not the real owners. Those who received the chief rents of Scotch feus were termed superior landlords, but they had no rights over the land beyond

  9
  receiving those chief rents. The mohunt, therefore, ought not to have had an assessor to value Arni Ghat; but this was done in order to give the Government of the North-West Provinces an extra voice against the Zemindars' assessor. As to this expropriation having been carried out according to law, it was stated, in opposition to that view, that the Small Causes Court in which this spoliation was decreed was not a Court competent under the Act to try such a case. It was also stated that the notices and proclamations required by the Act were not made in this case. Notice had to be given in the Government Gazette, and also by beat of drum, or by notices posted on the buildings on the estate or elsewhere, that the land is to be so taken. That many abuses had taken place under this Act was shown by the Circular recently issued and published last month by the Board of Revenue, calling upon the collectors and commissioners to exercise more personal supervision in cases arising out of the Land Acquisition Act. Now, though this expropriation took place a good while ago, it was only comparatively lately that the affair got into the Indian newspapers; and the late Secretary of State for India knew nothing of it, and it was never brought under his notice. The whole responsibility of this injustice and oppression, if it should be upheld, would, therefore, belong to the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India. By responsibility, he did not mean responsibility to Parliament, which was an obsolete and unmeaning phrase, but that responsibility in the next world which could not be evaded, and which the noble Viscount would not be inclined to deride. He would now relate the administrative abuses and arbitrary conduct to which this spoliation led the Lieutenant Governor of the North-West Provinces. Mr. Laidman, who had decided this case against the three Zemindars of Arni Ghat, in subsequent proceedings on the 9th of February, 1885, addressed these Rajpoots from the Bench with the words—"Soor! bad-mash! haramzadeh!" or, "Pigs! blackguards! bastards! you have appealed our decree to the High Court; "then he repeated the bad words, and told the peon to turn them out of Court. Captain Hearsey, who was present in Court, and who had befriended these Rajpoots, wrote a letter to The Statesman of Calcutta
  10
  narrating these unseemly words from the Judicial Bench. For this, Sir Alfred Lyall directed Mr. Laidman to prosecute Captain Hearsey for defamation; he could not brook any criticism even of an unworthy member of the Civil Service. Accordingly, Captain Hearsey was prosecuted in July, 1885. The Chief Justice summed up against the prosecution, and the jury acquitted Captain Hearsey in five minutes. There were seven Christian and two Native jurors; the foreman was the local manager of the Agra Savings Bank, and another juror was connected with another bank. It was naturally to have been expected that Sir Alfred Lyall should have bowed to this judicial decision; but their Lordships would be astonished to learn that he replied by promoting Mr. Laidman to a higher post, with additional salary of Rs.300 a month, although he had just been shown to be unfit for the Bench, and tainted with perjury. It was also stated that he remitted, or ordered to be refunded to Mr. Laidman, the costs which had been given against him in the recent trial. If the Secretary of State should find that Mr. Laidman's costs had been repaid to him out of public money, would he direct that Captain Hearsey also should be reimbursed the Rs.3,000 that he had to pay for his defence? Not satisfied with that he wrote a Minute or Resolution, condemnatory of or adversely criticizing the Chief Justice's judgment, and sent it round in a semi-secret way to his judicial subordinates, for it was sent round to them by a messenger, with orders that they were to take note of it, but not take a copy of it. The Secretary of State would hardly be able to uphold or excuse this method of the Lieutenant Governor of a Province of securing the respect of the junior members of the Judicial Body for the Chief Justice. Their Lordships would probably be told—and, if so, he should entirely concur with the statement—that Sir Alfred Lyall was a man of great ability, culture, and energy, and an ornament of the Indian Civil Service; but he had the defect of caring more for the interests of the Civil Service than for the interests of the people of India; and in these affairs he seemed to have lost his judgment and to have exemplified the saying—Corruptio optimi pessima. Sir Alfred Lyall had, however, done an

  11
  injury to the Indian Civil Service, since the Press had contrasted his conduct with that of Lord Reay in the Cambay case; and many would be led to say that the Lieutenant Governorships of Bengal and the North-West Provinces ought to be filled up by men fresh from England, and not by members of the Civil Service. The wrong done under the sanction of the Lieutenant Governor had borne fruit, and formed a precedent. Quite recently, the municipality of Mussoorie, when wanting a piece of land for the disposal of their sewage, offered Rs.10,000 to their Vice President for a piece belonging to him; later they wanted to take for Rs.1,000 only a plot from the villagers of Kiar Kuly, half the size of that for which they had offered Rs.10,000. These villagers escaped from expropriation, because the medical officer would not allow this land to be used for the purpose, as it would have contaminated the water going to the Goorkha lines. The municipality was now attempting to expropriate some other villagers for an inadequate price, and although the matter was not legally concluded, the municipality had taken possession of the land and placed its filth upon it. He concluded by moving for a copy of Sir Alfred Lyall's Resolution on the Judgment of the Chief Justice.
  Moved, "For a Copy of Sir Alfred Lyall's resolution on the Judgment of the Chief Justice."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS), in reply, said, it was not his intention to enter into the subject of future legislation, or discuss the question generally; he would content himself with simply answering the Question put before him. On the first two clauses of the Question, it would be enough to say that the decision of the subordinate Judge of Dehra Dun in the case referred to by the noble Lord was appealed against in the High Court of the North-West Provinces by the tenants; that their appeal was dismissed with costs, their own counsel admitting that he had no case; and that if there had been in the decision appealed against either any failure in substantial justice or any defect in the form of procedure, it would certainly have been taken notice of by the High Court. As regards the third clause of the Question,
  12
  Captain Hearsey stated, in a Memorial received from him, that he had sent to the Viceroy a Petition for transmission to the Secretary of State. He (Viscount Cross) did not propose to take any action, unless he received a representation on the subject from or through the Government of India in the ordinary course.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he was satisfied with the noble Viscount's reply, as the matter was under the examination of the Indian Government, and he would withdraw the Motion. The noble Viscount, however, had been misinformed as to the appeal.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

IRISH LAND LAW BILL.—(No. 58.)
(The Lord Privy Seal, Earl Cadogan.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he wished to point out that since the Bill was read a second time, Her Majesty's Government had altered what must be considered as the most important part of the Bill in a very serious way. They had proposed to omit the three Clauses 21, 22, and 23 in the Bill, dealing with the power of the Court to stay eviction, the jurisdiction of the County Court, and the power, in certain cases, to continue the tenant in his holding, notwithstanding his bankruptcy, and substitute new clauses for them of vital importance to Irish landlords generally. Now those clauses had been in the hands of noble Lords but a very short time, and they contained very important provisions indeed, and, although he for one and, he believed, other Irish landlords were perfectly ready to consider those Amendments, if possible, in a favourable manner, they still felt that the Amendments in question were of such vital importance that some time ought to be given, not only for Irish Landlords to consult among themselves as to whether they met the objections previously raised, but also that they might be able to refer the new clauses to those in Ireland who were best able to judge, in order that they might have their opinions to strengthem them in any action they might think fit to take in that

13
House. He wished to know whether, supposing their Lordships agreed to accept temporarily those three clauses, the Government would consent to recommit the Bill subsequently in order that noble lords might have an opportunity of carefully considering them, and, perhaps, proposing Amendments upon them if they were so advised.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, he thought the Amendments met the objections raised on the second reading only to a limited extent. He objected to the clauses as they now stood, however, not on the ground that he did not wish to gee some equitable jurisdiction given to County Court Judges, or whoever were to be the authorities eventually under the Act; but, because he did not believe that those County Court Judges could overtake the work which would be thrown upon them if the clauses passed in their present form. He had taken considerable trouble to ascertain, and found that authorities in Ireland and elsewhere entirely coincided with him on that point. Time ought to be given for inquiries into the matter, and he should be exceedingly glad if the Government could see their way to accept the suggestion of his noble Friend (Lord Inchiquin) and leave those subjects an open question until the other clauses, to which he believed very little serious objection would now be made, had been considered.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he would suggest as the most convenient way out of the difficulty, that their Lordships should that evening proceed seriatim with the first 20 clauses of the Bill, and that on coming then to the three new clauses, the Government should consent to re-port Progress, in order that they might resume again on Thursday next. In doing that they would have made very considerable progress with the measure, and one of the objects that would be accomplished by that course would be that their Lordships would be able to consider those very important and interesting clauses, which required to be weighed in every line before becoming the law of the land, besides which they should have a statement and explanation from the Government of the real import and bearing of the clauses.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNwas understood to express himself in a similar sense.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR, FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that he agreed with the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Fitzgerald) that they should go into Committee at once; but with regard to the question as to what their Lordships should do when they came to the 21st clause, he should be sorry if the House then came to a Resolution such as that suggested by the noble and learned Lord to adjourn for another considerable period. He did not think anything would be gained by that course. If noble Lords were not able to ascertain the import and bearing of the clauses now, they were not likely to do so by Friday. The Government felt the extreme difficulty of the subject in framing the clauses so as to meet every view. That had been felt by everybody who had attempted to deal with it. It was not only difficult in itself, by reason of the state of the law, but on account of the strangely varying testimony with respect to the probable bearing of each portion of the clauses as originally drawn. It required, they might say, an expert to know what Irish tenants would do, and what Irish County Court Judges would do; but the worst of it was that experts were not yet agreed upon the subject, and they directly differed with each other upon it, and, therefore, there was undoubtedly more than usual perplexity and difficulty in adapting the language of the clauses to the necessities of the legislation the Government had in view. He should be extremely sorry if their Lordships, when they reached these clauses, were to adjourn. What the Government wanted was not an adjournment, but discussion, in order to hear from noble Lords precisely what were the objections which they took to the new clauses. By an adjournment before they came to the clauses, they would be as much in the dark as over as to what noble Lords thought. It was important to know what the danger was which certain noble Lords anticipated; and they could not consider how the language of the clauses should best be drawn, in order to meet these apprehensions until they knew where the danger lay. He would, therefore, deprecate any proposal which. would prevent a full discussion of the clauses. If, after the clauses had been

15
discussed, and they had gone through the Bill, it should be the pleasure of the House to recommit the Bill as to these clauses, that would be perfectly in Order, and might, perhaps, meet the views of some of those who had spoken on this subject. It was the desire of the Government to give every facility for bringing this Bill into accordance with the feelings of noble Lords so far as it was consistent with the main object of the Bill. He would, therefore, recommend that they should go on with the Bill that night; and if they did not finish it, they might do so on Friday, and might then recommit it to some day after that.
THE EARL OF KILMOREYsaid, he hoped that the Government would allow an adjournment after reaching the 21st clause, in consideration of the vital importance of the question to those who were Irish landowners.
House in Committee.

ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES.
Amendments of General Application.
Clause 1 (Leaseholders).
LORD FITZGERALD,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 12, after the word "holding," the insertion of the words "and if such lessee so elects," said, the effect of it would be that it should only be on the desire of the leaseholder that he should be admitted to the benefits of the Act of 1881. No application for revision of a leas9 could thus be made by a landlord. The importance of this Bill could not be overestimated, and every word of it required to be considered, and every provision read, with the greatest care. The original idea of the Act of 1881 had been to provide protection to yearly tenants against what might prove to be excessive rents, and also to give them security of tenure. He could never see why leaseholders were not admitted to the benefits of the Act of 1881; but he would point out that they ought only to be so on different terms from those given to yearly tenants. That exclusion had created great discontent. It was now proposed that leaseholders, without waiting for the expiration of their leases, should be at once brought within the provisions of the Bill. He only regretted that the principle was not carried further, and extended to all leases, without being confined to those expiring
16
within 60 years of the passing of the Land Act. A Bill extending the provisions of the Act of 1881 to all leaseholders at the election of the lessee had been read a second time with the assent of the Leader of the House of Commons; it was backed by Mr. T. W. Russell, Lord Ernest Hamilton, Mr. Lea, Mr. Johnston, and Mr. Sinclair, all Members, he believed, representing the North of Ireland. There was, however, a large class of leaseholders who did not want their leases interfered with, and who looked with alarm at this impending legislation which would reduce them to yearly tenancies. In some cases, where the leaseholder would find his lease broken without his having a voice in the matter, the rent he would have to pay might be larger than that which he had paid before, owing to his having had a lease fixed at a low rent. He, therefore, proposed the Amendment to meet such cases of leaseholders who did not wish to have their leases broken.
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 12, after ("holding,") to insert ("and if such lessee so elects.")—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)said, that the Government found it impossible to accede to the Amendment; because, if it were earned out, it would result in a one-sided and unfair state of things. No doubt, it was the object of the Bill to give relief in cases where it was required; but he was not aware that that relief should be given to the lease holder and not to the landlord. If the Amendment were agreed to, the tenant would have a right to go into the Land Court and have his lease broken, whereas the landlord would have no such right to break a lease if he so desired. He therefore hoped that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald) would not press the Amendment.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he thought that, in one sense, it might be described as one-sided; but, on the other hand, if the clause were adopted without amendment, it would result in a great hardship to many tenants who were now holding under leases, because it was not a mere question of rent. By the Act of 1881, a landlord could resume possession of a farm for his own purposes, or for those of a relation; and a farm held by a leaseholder would be placed in the same position. The object of the Bill

17
was to produce satisfaction and content, by the giving of relief to leaseholders; but unless the Amendment was agreed to, though the clause would give great satisfaction to those who were entitled to go into Court and have their rents reduced, it would produce great dissatisfaction amongst others who came to get the reverse of a benefit in order that their neighbours might be benefited. It was not merely that the landlord would be entitled to have the rent fixed in the lease raised, but the clause would, under certain circumstances, entitle him to resume possession. ["No, no!"] Yes; for the tenant would be thrown into the position of a tenant under the Land Act of 1881, and that measure enabled a landlord, for certain purposes, to resume possession. The clause, unless altered as suggested by the Amendment, would create great disatisfaction and discontent.
THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, that, in the interests of the Irish landlords, they ought to support the Amendment. It might appear rather one-sided; but still, with his knowledge of the North of Ireland, he thought the clause required to be amended in the direction suggested. He did not believe the working of the clause, as it stood, would be satisfactory from the tenants' point of view where land was held at a low rent. It would be repugnant to any good landlord to break his tenant's lease against the will of such tenant; and, speaking as an Irish landlord, he appealed to noble Lords who owned land in Ireland to support the Amendment, as being the course which Irish landlords who had not seats in the House would themselves take.
LORD THRINGsaid, he thought the Bill would be most unfair to mortgagees, by breaking leases which might recently have been pledged as valuable securities.
EARL CADOGANsaid, the lease would not be at once broken, but only in certain eventualities.
LORD THRING, continuing, said, the clause would break every lease in Ireland, even if the tenant was perfectly satisfied with his position. [Ministerial cries of "No, no!"] Such would, undoubtedly, be the effect of the Bill. It would work immense injustice.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he felt bound to corroborate the statement of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Thring). The clause would at once
18
break every lease in Ireland, for all would be brought under the direct action of the Bill. He could not see why the Government should object to the Amendment. It was only in appearance, and not in reality, that the Amendment was one-sided. The fact that the law enabled A to have his lease broken ought in no way to give the landlord the right of breaking B's lease against B's will. Because one leaseholder got his rent reduced, another leaseholder ought not to be liable to have his raised. If one man were concerned in both operations, it would be just, but different men were concerned. He could not imagine that there was a landlord in Ireland who, having given a beneficial lease to a respectable tenant, would wish to break it, merely because another tenant, whose circumstances were different, was enabled by law to get rid of his lease. He understood and appreciated the reasons which induced the Government to admit leaseholders to the benefits of the Land Act; but he could not approve the limitation of those benefits in the manner proposed by this clause. The Government had accepted the state of the law as they had inherited it from their Predecessors, and were not responsible for it. They retained their former objection to the principle; but they thought it necessary to admit these leaseholders to the benefit of the Act. He could not admit that it was a real and just corollary that when leaseholders wished to remain with their leases, they should be forced to give them up.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, that by the legislation introduced in 1881, the holders of leases which would expire in 60 years after that date were given the right of continuing in possession as present tenants after the expiration of the lease. The present Bill assumed that the 60 years had now expired, and gave at once to leaseholders the same status which they would acquire under the Act of 1881 after the lapse of more than 50 years. They would, in fact, become present tenants, subject to the terms and conditions of the leases held by them. Under the clause under consideration the provisions of each lease would, therefore, remain effective until either the landlord or the tenant should object to them. He would ask if it was reasonable to have an entirely one-sided arrangement by which one of the parties

19
would have the right to examine into the rent, while the other would be denied the right of saying a word on the subject? The unanimous report of the Cowper Commission was to the effect that lessors, as well as lessees, should have a, right of application, and all the evidence that he had read taken by the Commission supported that part of the Report. The broad question before them was whether they were to give an option to the tenant alone, and give no voice to the landlord. To that the Government were unable to assent, and, therefore, they could not agree to accept the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, his first feeling on reading the clause was entirely in favour of the contention of the Government; but further consideration, and hearing the remarks of the noble Earl (the Earl of Leitrim) to-night, had induced grave doubts in his mind, whether this would be a power which the landlords of Ireland would be able to exercise. Most of the witnesses examined before Lord Cowper's Commission had also expressed the opinion that the right to break a lease ought not to be given to the landlord. If a landlord had one tenant holding on a lease at a rent which would probably be reduced on application, and two others holding on very low rents, he asked any of their Lordships whether, if he were placed in that position, and. the tenant holding at a high rent went and got his lease broken, he would go to the other two tenants and say that because the one tenant had got his lease broken, and his rent reviewed, he must take proceedings in order to have their rents reviewed also? So strong was his feeling in favour of covenant, that he should feel that to be a dishonourable act. No Act of Parliament would ever induce him to go to these men and address them in such language. He rejoiced to hear from a noble Earl, who was an Irish landlord, the true sentiment which he believed would animate the great majority of Irish landlords. He (the Duke of Argyll) felt strongly against the whole principle of the clause. He admitted the argument that if leases were broken in Ireland at all, they should be broken all over the country; but, looking at its abstract application, he felt that the clause as it now stood, and with-
20
out the Amendment, would be likely to create the greatest possible dissatisfaction in particular parts of Ireland, and, at the same time, fail to supply honourable and generous landlords with any advantage. Good landlords would never break one man's lease with a view to an augmentation of rent because the leases of other tenants had been broken with the result that their rents had been reduced. To break a lease with such an object in view would be what he would again call a dishonourable act, and he did not think so meanly of Irish landlords as to believe them to be capable of it.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he sincerely hoped the Government would see their way to retain the provision in their Bill. If there was an advantage given to one side it should be given to the other. He maintained that a man had a right to elect whether he would come under the Bill or not.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the clause made it possible to break all leases; but he would ask—was there a single landlord who, because he lost over one lease, would break another lease to the disadvantage of his tenants? He thought that was a sufficient argument to make him vote for his noble Friend.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he hoped they would have some notice taken of the point raised as to mortgages.
LORD MACNAGHTENexpressed the hope that the Government would accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would point out that, besides the rights of tenants, there were also rights of public law to be considered; and the question was, what had they a right to do in respect to those landlords who were not all represented in that House, and whose rights deserved consideration from them as well as the rights of tenants. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Thring) said that the Government did not dissemble their dislike to the Act of 1881; but he (the Marquess of Salisbury) must say that that Act, so far as it dealt with fair rent, professed, at least, to be scrupulously impartial between landlord and tenant; and it provided that, if the tenant might obtain a reduction of too large a rent, the landlord might obtain an increase of too small a

21
rent. The object of the Act, in short, was to give a fair rent. Well, it was found by a great many leaseholders that it was a great hardship on them to be excluded from that legislation, and therefore it was proposed that they should be put in the same position as the tenants whose lot they envied. But the Government were now told that they were not to follow the precedent of the Act of 1881; that they were to enable the rent to be reduced when too high, but that they were not to let it be raised if it were too low. On what ground was that proposed? If the landlords were a race with no rights, then he could understand it; but if Parliament was to hold the balance between the two parties, surely Parliament would first treat the leaseholders as they had treated the tenants-at-will, and allow rents to be raised when they ought to be raised, and lowered when they ought to be lowered. As to mortgagees, it was said—"Suppose that the mortgage had been obtained upon the property subject to this low rent; if you raise the rent, you destroy the security of the mortgagee." Well, but it did not occur to the noble Lord who said that, that the same thing might happen in the opposite direction, and that where a landlord had leased his property and built himself a comfortable house, and possibly mortgaged his land on the security of the leases, he might find, if this Amendment were adopted, his house too large for him and his mortgages broken. He would remind the Committee that there were poor landlords as well as poor tenants in Ireland, and he wanted them to mete out to the poor landlords the same justice that they meted out to the poor tenant. He asked for no advantage for the one over the other in dealing between man and man.
THE EARL of SELBORNEsaid, he would point out that in the case of yearly tenants, either party could, by a short notice, put an end to the tenancy; and as within those limits of time, either party could alter the terms of the holding, it was manifestly reasonable to say that that there should be the reciprocal right to go into Court and have the rent revised. But now they had two classes to consider besides the landlords. They had the tenants, who had a fixed term and wished to give it up, and they had the tenants who had a fixed term and did not wish to give it up; and he could
22
not see why they should give away the estate of the one because they thought there wore reasons of policy for helping the other to relieve themselves from a position in which they did not like to remain.
EARL COWPERsaid, the Royal Commission had recommended that on every occasion when the rents had been made as low, or lower than Griffith's valuation, the landlord should not have power to bring the tenants into Court. The Government had paid no attention to that recommendation. As he had to decide between the Amendment and allowing leases of all kinds, however low, to be brought into Court, he thought he should be acting least contrary to the recommendation which he had signed, in common with the other Members of the Commission, if he voted for the Amendment.
On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 62; Not-Contents 130: Majority 68.

CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Grafton, D.

St. Albans, D.

Herschell, L.

Hothfield, L.

Northampton, M.

Houghton, L.

Ripon, M.

Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Camperdown, E.

Chesterfield, E.

Kensington, L.

Cowper, E.

Lawrence, L.

Derby, E.

Lingen, L.

Ducie, E.

Lovat, L.

Fife, E.

Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

Fortescue, E.

Granville, E.

Lyttelton, L.

Kimberley, E.

Macnaghten, L.

Minto, E.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Northbrook, E.

Monkswell, L.

Selborne, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Spencer, E.

Strafford, E.

Poltimore, L.

Sydney, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Oxenbridge, V.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Ashburton, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Belper, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Robartes, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Brabourne, L.

Bramwell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.) [Teller.]

Talbot de Malahide, L.

De Mauley, L.

Thring, L.

Dormer, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Ventry, L.

Wolverton, L.

FitzGerald, L. [Teller.]

23

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Hawarden. V. (E. de Montalt.)

Cranbrook, V. (L. President.)

Sidmouth, V.

Torrington, V.

Cadogan, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Alington, L.

Ardilaun, L.

Buckingham and Chandos, D.

Ashbourne, L.

Aveland, L.

Portland, D.

Balfour of Burley, L.

Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk)

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Braybrooke, L.

Abergavenny, M.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Bristol, M.

Hertford, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Salisbury, M.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Amherst, E.

Annesley, E.

Chelmsford, L.

Aylesford, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Bathurst, E.

Belmore, E.

Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

Buckinghamshire, B.

Clonmell, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Coventry, E.

Colchester, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Colville of Culross, L.

Dartrey, E.

de Ros, L.

Denbigh, E.

Deramore, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Dig by, L.

Dinevor, L.

Egerton, L.

Feversham, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Harewood, E.

Esher, L.

Harrowby, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Kilmorey, E.

Lanesborough, E.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) [Teller.]

Lindsay, E.

Lucan, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Macclesfield, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Mar, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Harlech, L.

Milltown, E.

Harris, L.

Morton, E.

Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

Nelson, E.

Northesk, E.

Hillingdon, L.

Onslow, E.

Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

Orkney, E.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Howard de Walden, L.

Hylton, L.

Powis, E.

Inchiquin, L.

Ravensworth, E.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Romney, E.

Rosse, E.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Rosslyn, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) [Teller.]

Scarborough, E.

Stanhope, E.

Lamington, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

Leconfield, L.

Lurgan, L.

Tankerville, E.

Lyveden, L.

Verulam, E.

Massy, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

Yarborough, E.

Zetland, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Bangor, V.

Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

Bridport, V.

Cross, V.

Mostyn, L.

Exmouth, V.

O'Neill, L.

Gough, V.

Penryhn, L.

Hardinge, V.

Polwarth, L.

24

Rodney, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Rossmore, L.

Templemore, L.

Rowton, L.

Tollemache, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

Scarsdale, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Winmarleigh, L.

Wynford, L.

Sinclair, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Stanley of Preston, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Amendment disagreed to.
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 13, after ("conditions,") insert ("and subject to the same right of resumption.")—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he objected to the Amendment that it would not merely make a leaseholder a present tenant, but would make him a present tenant with something less than the rights of a present tenant, because the landlord would have a special and exceptional right of resumption.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it would be better that the Amendment should stand over till the Report.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that in consequence of the decision at which their Lordships had arrived, he would not move the next Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name.
THE EARL OF BELMORE THE EARL OF BELMORE moved an Amendment, providing that the lessee shall not be deemed to be a present tenant where substantial consideration "is shown by the said lease to have been given therefor to the lessor by the lessee," and such lessee objects to being deemed a present tenant.
Amendment moved,
In page 1, line 18, to leave out ("has been given for the said lease,") and insert ("is shown by the said lease to have been given therefor to the lessor by the lessee.")—(The Earl of Belmore.)
EARL CADOGANsaid, he thought the noble Earl might, perhaps, be satisfied with the Amendment he (Earl Cadogan) had put on the Paper dealing with this point. The Government preferred that Amendment to the one moved by the noble Earl.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
On the Motion of The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl Cadogan), the following Amendment made:—In line 19, after ("lease,") insert ("to the lessor or with his knowledge").
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,in moving an Amendment providing that the lessee shall not be deemed to be a "present tenant" where substantial consideration has been given for the lease "by the lessee, or by the lessor, and such lessee or lessor objects to the tenant being deemed a present tenant," said, the principle involved in the Proviso was that, in fixing a fair rent, the Act of 1881 laid down that the Court should hear the persons, and having regard to the interests of the landlord and the tenant respectively, and considering all the circumstances of the case and the holding, might determine what a fair rent was. Undoubtedly, under those general words, the Court ought to consider what was paid on the one hand by the landlord, and on the other by the tenant. But it was a great fallacy to suppose that the tenant's was the only case worthy of consideration, and he thought the attention of the Court should be drawn to the valuable consideration, in the form of permanent improvements or otherwise, given by the landlord. His object, therefore, was to protect the landlord in all cases where he had given such valuable consideration. In this connection, he would relate two instances which had been brought to his notice, of tenants of Lord Lansdowne, against whom such an indecent and unjust persecution was being carried on, a persecution which, in all the circumstances of the case, was the most outrageous that had occurred. He happened to have heard of the cases that morning, not from Lord Lansdowne, because he had had no communication with him, but from another source. Of the two persons who were leaders in the agitation, one was a person named Dunn, who held five contiguous farms. The agitators pretended that all the agitation was in favour of poor men holding small holdings; but the principal agitator against Lord Lansdowne was what might well be called a land-grabber, paying a rent of £1,367. He was a capitalist farmer, and not a poor man at all; and he had enjoyed a long lease during prosperous times. Look at the outlay to which Lord Lansdowne had
26
been put regarding these farms. Lord Lansdowne had laid out £2,625 on the drainage of these farms, which sum he received by loan from the Government at 6½ per cent, and for which Lord Lansdowne was only charging Mr. Dunn 2½ per cent, thereby actually losing money largely on the transaction by which this gentleman benefited. The other gentleman to whom he referred was Mr. Kilbride. This gentleman held two farms at a rent of £760. What had Lord Lansdowne laid out on these farms? It was commonly, but most unjustly, said that landlords in Ireland never spent any money on their estates. Lord Lansdowne, in this case, had laid out no less a sum than £3,179, which he had borrowed at 6½ per cent. He had only charged this gentleman, who was hounding Irishmen in Canada against the Viceroy, 4 per cent, he himself paying the balance of 2½ per cent. He maintained it was monstrous, when there were plenty of cases undoubtedly in Ireland of this kind where landlords had expended large sums, that the attention of the Courts should not be directed by the Act of Parliament to cases where the landlord had given valuable consideration, as well as to those cases where the improvements had been effected by the tenants. Even if Lord Lansdowne had not laid out a single sixpence he held that there was a case for compensation. He did not know the length of the leases of those gentlemen or when they expired; but looking at the prices of agricultural produce during the last 30 years, he knew that at least during 20 of those years, prices were so high that there was keen competition for every vacant farm. Seeing that such tenants had enjoyed the benefit of high prices during 20 years, it was neither just nor reasonable that they should be allowed to come into Court, and plead the recent exceptional prices, and get a judicial rent without the attention of the Court being directed to circumstances so clamant as this, and without provision being made for the landlords as regards their expenditures. The reason of the case was quite manifest, and he would conclude, therefore, by moving the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment moved,
In page 1, line 19, to leave out from ("lease") to end of the Proviso, and insert ("by the

27
lessee or by the lessor, and such lessee or lessor objects to the tenant being deemed a present tenant.")—(The Duke of Argyll.)
EARL CADOGANsaid, he quite appreciated the point put by the noble Duke, and, undoubtedly, no better illustration could be given of the object of the Amendment than that of the case of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne), which had created so much sympathy all over the country. He would suggest, however, to the noble Duke that his object was met by the first paragraph on page 2—
"Provided also, that when under the provisions of this section an application is made to the Court to fix a judicial rent for a holding held under a lease, the Court shall disallow such application if the Court is satisfied that the landlord or his predecessors in title has or have made permanent improvements on the holding, the unexhausted value of which improvements is at the time of making such application not less than four times the yearly rent of the holding."
If those words were not adequate to meet the case put by the noble Duke, the Government, sympathizing with the object, would consider the desirability of amending them.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he did not think the object he had in view would be met by the words quoted; but he would not press his Amendment at the present stage.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
LORD FITZGERALD LORD FITZGERALD moved, as an Amendment, to omit altogether the first paragraph on page 2, referred to by the noble Earl (Earl Cadogan). He urged that whereas the Bill was promoted with a view to removing discontent and every sense of injustice, the paragraph in question would involve a most complicated inquiry and litigation, and be a source of dissatisfaction besides being wholly unnecessary.
Amendment moved, in page 2, to omit the first sub-section.—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
LORD CASTLETOWNearnestly condemned the tribunals which had to carry out the Act of 1881.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that in the particular case of improvements mentioned in the clause, it was necessary that they should have some technical words, as there was a natural
28
prejudice in all minds against people who did not follow the ordinary practice of the country-side, and therefore he thought that they could hardly trust the Court to deal with the matter without words of this nature being inserted. Whether four times the yearly rent was not too much for a calculation of the unexhausted value of the improvements, he was not certain, and they were willing to consider any Amendments upon that subject. Some limitation, however, was necessary. He would frankly confess to noble Lords from Ireland, that it was not merely a care for Irish property that had led the Government to introduce this clause. They were not only anxious to do what was popular and was the cause of contentment, but also to leave upon the Statute Book nothing but provisions that were just in themselves; because they knew from experience, that injustice was prolific, and that an unjust enactment placed upon the Statute Book would produce others still more unjust. He was anxious that they should draw a broad line of distinction between what wag alleged to have created the necessity for such legislation in Ireland—namely, the practice of the tenants making improvements, and the case which existed in both parts of this Island. It was very important that that distinction should be clearly established, and, therefore, that some such provision as this should be placed on the Statute Book, especially when they were taking such an exceptional step as breaking leases.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he felt bound to protest against the idea that they had Courts in Ireland administering Land Laws which could not be trusted, and he thought that any legislation which rested upon that contention must be vicious. If Her Majesty's Government held the view that the Courts were not to be trusted, their proper course would have been to bring in a Bill to reform those Courts.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhoped that there would be no misconstruction placed upon his words. What he did say was, that some of those who had to carry out those Acts were liable, as all men were, to a prejudice in this one particular case.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that it was a very unsafe thing to legislate on the principle of distrust of the Courts. One result of the clause would

29
be, that the present tenants created by the Bill would be on a different footing from all other present tenants in Ireland under the Act of 1881, and confusion would be almost certain to ensue. The proposal contained in the clause, he considered a most unadvisable one to make.
LORD FITZGERALDdefended the Courts, which, he said, were presided over by men of very high character.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, what he gathered from the evidence before the Cowper Commission was that no Courts were competent to decide in this case, not because they were dishonest, but because Parliament had given them a function which no Court could discharge. Their Lordships would remember that within two years after the operation of this Act, the Ulster tenants came in a body to Sir George Trevelyan, then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and remonstrated with him on the rents which were then fixed by the Commissioners, and urged that they were great supporters of the Government of the day. Did the House not remember that, instead of the matter being treated as one for judicial decision, it was considered as one for political action, and that Sir George Trevelyan, honest and honourable man as he was, was obliged to fence with them? He told them the Executive Government had nothing to do with rents; but before the deputation left his room, he distinctly said the Government would keep an eye on these valuations, and if they found the interests of the tenants were not protected, they would know how to apply a remedy. That was the spirit in which the matter was regarded.
EARL SPENCERsaid, that his recollection of the incident referred to was that the deputation that waited upon the Chief Secretary complained of the system under which valuators had been appointed to the Courts. The answer of the Chief Secretary was explained in the subsequent debate in the House of Commons, when it was shown that the appointment of valuators had not enabled the Commissioners to dispose of the cases with sufficient speed. In fact, he stated in the House of Commons that as due expedition was not shown, the Commissioners, in conjunction with the Government, had decided to alter and reconstitute the Sub-Commission.
LORD CASTLETOWNsaid, that the principal work under the Land Act fell upon the Land Commissioners, and those were the men in whom they had no confidence.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Amendment moved, to add, at the end of the Clause I., the following Provise:—
"Provided, That this section shall not apply to any lease made before the passing of said Act of 1881, where the Court shall be satisfied that, by agreement between the landlord and the tenant of the holding, entered into and made after the passing of said Act of 1881, the rent reserved by the lease has been reduced for the residue of the term."—(The Earl of Erne.)
EARL CADOGAN: said, he could not accept the Amendment, because he thought it was unnecessary. He did not see why the fact that a landlord had entered into an agreement with his tenant to reduce the rent fixed by the lease should disentitle the tenant to have a fair rent fixed. If the reduction made to the tenant by the landlord brought the rent down to a fair rent, then this Court would not interfere with it; whereas, if the reduction did not bring it quite down to a fair rent, the Commissioners would only reduce it to that point.
THE EARL OF CORKsaid, he thought that the Amendment would be only fair towards landlords who, like himself, had come to amicable terms with their tenants. It would be rather hard that, having reduced their rents for some years past, they should now be placed in a worse position than those landlords who had refused to reduce the rents of those tenants who held under leases. It was no satisfaction to him as a landlord to know that he could go into Court, for he did not wish to do so. In fairness to those landlords who had acted generously, some such provision as that proposed by the noble Earl ought to be inserted in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that in no way could the clause be unjust, for no reduction would be made to a lower level than the fair rent. He would suggest, therefore, that the noble Earl might be content with an Amendment directing that diminutions of rent resulting from such agreements as he contemplated in his Proviso should be taken into consideration by the Court when fixing a fair rent.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he thought that when a tenant whose rent had been reduced in the circumstances described in the Proviso, repaired to the Laud Court to seek a judicial rent, the special bargain between him and the landlord ought to be treated as rescinded, so that the original and not the reduced rent might be taken into consideration. To enact that would be to follow the legal principle, that when a man was dissatisfied with a bargain, he could not retain that portion of it which he considered beneficial to himself, while seeking to be released of the covenants to which he objected. He had not a word to say against those who had been reducing rents in Ireland; but he was satisfied that they felt they had been sent on a mission of reduction.
Amendment disagreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 (Judicial rent may commence on date of application to the court), agreed to.
Clause 3 (Consolidation of proceedings in ejectment, and application for fair rent).
LORD FITZGERALD LORD FITZGERALD moved an Amendment limiting the application of a clause to ejectments brought in Civil Bill Courts. The object of the Amendment, he explained, was to prevent delay.
Amendment agreed to.
Moved, "To omit Sub-section 2 of the Clause."—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
Motion agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF ERNE, in moving the addition of a new clause after Clause 3, said, he thought it would be a better arrangement than leaving the selection to the Judges, and he hoped the matter would be considered by the Government.
Amendment moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following Clause:—
"The Lord Lieutenant shall from time to time appoint independent valuers to report to the Judges of the Civil Bill Courts upon all matters which may assist such Judges in determining the fair rent and specified value of a holding. There shall he paid to such valuers such remuneration as the Lord Lieutenant may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine,"—(The Earl of Erne.)
EARL SPENCERsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Earl that it would be better to place this power in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant.
EARL CADOGANsaid, the Amendment was out of place; the point would arise on Clause 29.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 4 (Substitution of a written notice for the execution of an ejectment).
On the Motion of The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl Cadogan) the following Amendments made:—
In page 2, line 37, at the beginning of the clause insert ("in the case of any holding for which a judgment in ejectment for non-payment of rent has been recovered"); and in page 3, line 4, leave out from (" upon ") to the end of the line, and insert ("every person served with the writ or process in such ejectment").
Amendment moved,
In line 12, after ("caretaker") insert ("When a person is deemed to have been put into possession of land as a caretaker under this section, he may he removed from possession at any time in the manner provided by law for the recovery of possession of premises occupied by a caretaker; or, at the expiration of the period of redemption, but not sooner, the possession of such land may be recovered by a writ of possession in the prescribed form under the said judgment in ejectment for non-payment of rent save as aforesaid."—(The Lord Privy Seal, Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he trusted their Lordships would have an opportunity of considering that very important clause when the Bill was recommitted.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Power of surrender by middleman).
EARL CADOGAN, in Sub-section 8, providing that the person to whom a surrender is proposed to be made shall not be bound thereby unless written notice of the intention to surrender be served within three months after the passing of this Act, or within three months after the making of the reduction of rent upon which the right to surrender is founded, proposed, as an Amendment, that "six months" be substituted for "three months" in both cases.
Amendment moved, in page 4, lines 42 and 43, leave out ("three") and insert ("six.")—(The Lord Privy Seal, Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNproposed an Amendment, providing that where a person claimed to surrender his holding, part of which is sub-let, the Court shall determine the fair rent of the part not sub-let as if it constituted a holding, and the person surrendering were the tenant and the person to whom the surrender is proposed to be made were the landlord of the holding, and such person so claiming shall be deemed to be a tenant of a present tenancy, and such holding shall be subject to all the provisions of the said Act of 1881 with regard to present tenancies, provided that such person has not sub-let any portion of his holding without the consent of his landlord.
Amendment moved,
In page 4, leave out from ("sublet") in line 6 down to the second ("he") in line 8; page 5, Sub-section (9.), line 15, alter ("holding") add ("and such person so claiming shall be deemed to be a tenant of a present tenancy, and such holding shall be subject to all the provisions of the said Act of 1881, with regard to present tenancies, provided that such person has not sublet any portion of his holding without the consent of his landlord.")—(The Earl of Milltown.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he felt bound to oppose the Amendment, on the ground that it was neither fair nor reasonable.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
LORD CLONCURRY,in moving to add the following sub-section to the clause:—
"The tenant of any holding held under a contract of tenancy made since the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, and made subject to Section 12 or Section 15 of that Act, may surrender his estate in the holding, subject to the provisions of this section,"
said, that the provision would only apply to a small number of tenants, and enable them to give back the land to the owner when they found that they could not make any profitable use of it. He thought it was a subject worthy the consideration of the Government whether, by extending this clause to the class of tenants to which he referred,
34
they would not conduce to the peace and order of the country.
Amendment moved,
In page 5, line 15, after("holding") insert—"(10.) The tenant of any holding held under a contract of tenancy, made since the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, and made subject to section twelve or section fifteen of that Act, may surrender his estate in the holding, subject to the provisions of this section."—(The Lord Cloncurry.)
EARL CADOGANsaid, he was very unwilling to decline any Amendment proposed by his noble Friend, but he could not accept the proposal which had been made with respect to this particular clause. If his noble Friend brought up a separate clause on the Report stage the Government would consider it; but at present, he regretted to say, they must oppose the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
On the Motion of The Lord FITZGERALD, the following Amendment made:—To add the following section at the end of clause:—
"Where any estate in land is surrendered under this section all sub-tenants of the person surrendering such estate shall thereupon become tenants to the person to whom such surrender is made at the rents and subject to the conditions of their sub-tenancies under the person so surrendering."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment moved, to insert the following new clauses in page 5, after Clause 5:—
"(6.) During the continuance of a statutory term in a tenancy, application by the landlord to authorize the resumption of a holding, or any part thereof, by him for some purpose having relation to the good of the holding or of the estate shall be entertained by the court, the modification in Section 8, Sub-section 3, of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, notwithstanding.
"(7.) Where the rent of any holding has been or may be increased, in respect of capital laid out by the landlord under agreement with the tenant, as provided by Section 5 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, the rent fixed by such agreement shall be deemed a fair rent during the term specified in such agreement, and until the expiry of such term no application for the alteration of such rent shall be entertained by the court."—(The Duke of Argyll.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he would admit that the question raised by the Amendment was one of considerable importance; but he would suggest that,

35
pending the careful consideration of it by the Lord Privy Seal and himself, it might not be pressed in the meantime.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he supported the Amendment in the interest of the labourers, for whom it was difficult to procure gardens and allotments near villages as the law stood at present.
LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he trusted the Government would favourably consider the Amendment, which he likewise regarded as affording the most important means of providing accommodation for the labourers.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that, while unwilling to press the Amendment in face of the opposition of the noble and learned Lord opposite, he hoped the Government would further consider the point. It was not in the interest of the landlords alone, but in the interest of all parties, that around all towns and cities in Ireland, as elsewhere, there should be ground available for building extensions.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Amendment moved,
After Clause 5, to insert as a new clause—"The provisions of the twenty-first section of the Act of 1881 with regard to leases, the acceptance of which by tenants was procured by threat of eviction or undue influence, shall apply to all grants in perpetuity executed since the first day of January, 1869, the execution of which has been so procured, provided that application to the Court be made within six months after the passing of this Act."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he hoped that the noble Earl would withdraw this clause. He (Lord Ashbourne) thought that, under all the circumstances, it would be desirable not to complicate the Bill by the insertion of such a clause.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 6 (Town parks).
LORD INCHIQUIN, in moving an Amendment by which any parcel of land let as accommodation land, and not as a farm, contiguous to any village or town, should be deemed to constitute a town park, and not a present tenancy, said, that his object was similar to that which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) had in view in a former Amendment, except that it did not pro-
36
vide for town buildings' extensions, but almost exclusively for allotments. The Amendment was simply to enable the landlords to let any land as accommodation land when it was contiguous to buildings, villages, and towns.
Amendment moved,
In page 5, line 20, after ("1881") insert ("and any parcel of land which has been or may hereafter be let as accommodation land, and not as a farm, contiguous to any village or town, shall be deemed to constitute a 'town park' and shall not be deemed to be a 'present tenancy' within the meaning of the said Act.") (The Lord Inchiquin.)
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he thought that if town parks were to be abolished, it should be directly, and not by a side wind. The clause in the Bill did not alter the law with regard to town parks, but merely defined what the law was. He preferred the Amendment of which he had given Notice, and which he was proceeding to read, when——
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: We are now considering the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Inchiquin).
LORD MACNAGHTENopposed the Amendment.
LORD ASHBOURNE,in opposing the Amendment on behalf of the Government, said, although it was only intended as an addition to the clause, it seemed to contradict the clause itself, and to offer an absolutely new definition of the purpose of accommodation land. It was also an absolutely new departure in the law of Ireland. The Government could not advise the Committee to accept it.
On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 16; Not-Contents 76: Majority 60.
Amendment disagreed to.
Amendment moved, to leave out Clause 6, and insert following clause—
"A parcel of land shall not be deemed to constitute a town park unless it is or has been used substantially as accommodation land, and is in other respects within the definition of the expression 'town park' in the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881: Provided always, that no parcel of land shall lose, or be deemed to have lost, its character of a town park by reason only that the person in occupation of the same shall have ceased after he became tenant thereof to live in such city or town, or the suburbs thereof, as in the said definition mentioned, or by reason of the holding becoming vested by succession, assignment, bequest, or act and operation of law in some person not residing in such city or town, or the suburbs thereof."—(The Earl of Belmore.)
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that the difficulty sought to be cured was that caused by the words "let to be used" in the clause as it now stood in the Bill. Similar words had been used with respect to grazing farms in the Land Act of 1870; and the Courts had held that the only way to prove such letting was by the production of an agreement in writing, which, in the case of town parks, could hardly ever be done. As regarded the latter part of the Amendment, it had been recently reluctantly decided to be the law, by the Head Commissioners, on appeal, at Omagh, that a person who had resided in a town, when he originally took a town park, could, by simply going to reside in the country, take the town park with him out of the definition as given in the Land Act of 1881, in breach of the intention of that Act. The Amendment he proposed was to meet that state of things.
EARL CADOGANsaid, he could not agree to accept the Amendment of the noble Earl, but he agreed that it was a very serious subject, and the Government would be quite willing to amend their own clause in order to meet the views of the noble Earl, and he would bring up a new clause for that purpose on Report.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORNsaid, he was glad that the Government were going to consider the matter, because the subject of town parks was of the greatest importance in Ireland.
THE EARL OF BELMOREaccepted the noble Earl's (Earl Cadogan's) offer.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Purchase of Land.
Clause 7 (Investment of guarantee deposit).
LORD CASTLETOWNproposed an Amendment to give power to invest, in addition to the securities mentioned in the Bill, in any debentures or debenture stock issued under the Local Loans Act, 1875. or in any Corporation or township stock, of any Municipal Corporation or township in Great Britain or Ireland issued under the authority of any Act of Parliament. That would give wider
38
powers to the trustees as to the investment of trust moneys.
Amendment moved,
In page 5, line 29, after ("moneys") insert ("or in any debentures or debenture stock issued under the Local Loans Act, 1875, or in any corporation or township stock of any Municipal Corporation or township in Great Britain or Ireland issued under the authority of any Act of Parliament.")—(The Lord Castletown.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he had no objection provided it was reasonably safe. He did not know whether the noble Lord had taken advice on the subject; but he should be glad if he would communicate with him between now and the Report.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
LORD CASTLETOWN LORD CASTLETOWN moved, as an Amendment, after Clause 7 to insert the following:—
"The Land Commission may make an advance to a tenant who is purchasing his holding of the whole principal sum or price payable by the tenant, without requiring the repayment of the advance to be secured by a guarantee deposit, if the Land Commission are satisfied that the security is reasonably sufficient without such deposit."
He thought it was a perfectly legitimate demand to ask the Government to advance the whole of the purchase-money on the terms provided in the proposed clause, as the owner or occupier might have all his capital invested in the holding, and might be unable to deposit the one-fifth of the price required by the Act of 1885. He had great pleasure in bearing high testimony to the regular and honourable manner in which loans were paid in instalments by Irish borrowers, and would refer to Mr. Henry Fowler, late Secretary to the Treasury, who had declared that he was perfectly astonished at the regularity with which the loans and interest had been paid, and which would compare favourably with the way in which loans were paid in any other portion of the Empire. What he (Lord Castletown) proposed was that they should assent to the whole loans where there was ample security.
Amendment moved,
In page 5, after Clause 7, insert following clause;—"The Land Commission may make an advance to a tenant who is purchasing his holding of the whole principal sum or price

39
payable by the tenant, without requiring the repayment of the advance to be secured by a guarantee deposit, if the Land Commission are satisfied that the security is reasonably sufficient without such deposit."—(The Lord Castletown.)
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, it had been pointed out to him that the fact of a deposit of one-fifth being required in all cases interfered with the sale of mortgaged estates, because the mortgagees generally wanted their money down. He supported the Amendment.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he was afraid it was quite impossible to accept the Amendment. In the Act of 1885 various attempts had been made to deal with this very question, and great difficulty was felt as to how the whole of the purchase-money could be advanced in safety. It was thought one-fifth was required as security. No such arrangement as that proposed in the Amendment could be made without the serious examination of it by the Treasury.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 8 (Trust funds may be applied as a guarantee deposit) agreed to.
Clause 9 (Duty of Land Commission with respect to enforcement of arrears) agreed to, with Amendments.
Clause 10 (Expediting proceedings on Bales) agreed to, with Amendments.
Clause 11 (Crown rents, quit rents, and tithe rent charge).
LORD MONTEAGLE,in moving as an Amendment to insert after "quitrent" the words "head rent," said, that difficulties had arisen in dealing with the owners of head rents in many instances, and he had known cases where the sale of land had been stopped through the owner of the head rent refusing to sell on any terms whatever, while, in other cases, a practically prohibitive price had been demanded, which came to the same thing. That was a serious matter, deserving the attention of the House and the Government; and he thought that something ought to be done to carry further the principle they had adopted in regard to that question.
Amendment moved, in page 7, line 16, after ("quit rent ") insert (" head rent.")—(The Lord Monteagle.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that that question had been very fully considered
40
and discussed in connection with the Land Purchase Act of 1885, and many representations were made on the subject. The people who were not owners of head rents were willing that they should be sub-divided; but those who owned head rents objected to it very much, urging that it would enormously diminish the value of their property, if, for example, a head rent of £100 or £200, payable at present by one person, were made payable by a large number of persons, which would necessitate the employment of an agent for the purpose. It was, therefore, said that it would be unjust to fritter away in that manner the property of the owners of head rents who were in the possession of a secure income without any trouble to themselves. Under all the circumstances, although he quite recognized and sympathized with the object in view, he feared it was not practicable to deal with the matter in the way now suggested.
THE EARL OF BELMOREhad come to the conclusion, having given a good deal of attention to the matter, that it would be necessary to introduce compulsory sale of head rents on fair terms.
EARL SPENCERsaid, he feared that as long as those head rents existed it would be almost impossible to get a satisfactory system of purchase of land by the occupier, and if the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Ashbourne) could remove that particular difficulty, much would be done to facilitate the working of such a system in Ireland.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
On the Motion of The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl Cadogan) the following Amendments made:—In lines 16, 18, and 24, after ("rent charge") insert ("Land Improvement Charge"),
LORD CASTLETOWNproposed an Amendment for the purpose of providing that when any holding sold to a tenant under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts was subject with other lands to any Crown rent, quit rent, tithe rent charge, drainage charge, "terminable annuity or rent charge," the Land Commission may apportion such rent or charge between the holding and the other land in such manner as seemed to them equitable.
Amendment moved,
In page 7, line 16, leave out ("or") and in same line after ("drainage charge") insert ("terminable annuity or rent charge")—The Lord Castletown.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, because it would interfere with private rights. He would, however, consider the matter, and communicate with his noble Friend before the Report stage.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
On the Motion of The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl Cadogan) the following Amendment made:—In line 26, at end of line, add as a new sub-section—
"(3.) No such apportionment or redemption of Crown rent shall be made without the previous consent of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and no such apportionment or redemption of tithe rentcharge payable to the Land Commission, or of Land Improvement Charge or of drainage charge payable to the Commissioners of Public Works, shall be made without the previous consent of the Commissioners of the Treasury.
"For the purpose of this section, the Commissioners of the Treasury may from time to time make rules for regulating the mode of giving consents, and the terms upon which consents shall be given."
Amendment moved, to add at end of Clause the following sub-section:—
"The Land Commission may, if they think it expedient, order the redemption of any head rent, or any apportioned part thereof, at a price to be fixed by arbitration in the manner provided by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts."
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he would consider the question, with the object of seeing what could be done at a later stage, and must, therefore, ask the noble Lord not to press the Amendment on that occasion.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he would not press his Amendment at that stage.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 (Limit on the amount of advance by the Land Commission); and Clause 13 (Charging order for securing repayment of an advance), separately agreed to.
Clause 14 (Priority of charge for advance) struck out of the Bill.
Clause 15 (Writ of possession) agreed to.
Clause 16 (Specific performance).
On the Motion of The Lord CASTLETOWN, the following Amendment made:—In page 8, line 22, after ("when") insert ("either before or after the passing of this Act"), and in same line leave out ("is") and insert ("has been").
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNproposed to add to the clause words providing that when the Land Commission refuse to sanction a sale agreed upon by the landlord and tenant, they shall, upon the application of either landlord or tenant, state the grounds upon which such refusal is based. He held that this was only reasonable and just, and that it was perfectly monstrous that two gentlemen should be allowed to upset the working of the Land Purchase Act without giving any reason whatever.
Amendment moved,
In page 8, line 32, after ("Commission") add—("When the Land Commission refuse to sanction such sale as aforesaid, they shall, upon the application of either landlord or tenant, state the grounds upon which such refusal is based.")—(The Earl of Milltown.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
LORD MONTEAGLE,in moving to insert after Clause 16 a clause providing that upon the completion of any sale under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, or the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1385, the title to each holding, as well as deeds, mortgages, and other charges affecting it, should be recorded in the office of the Land Commission, and not in the Registry of Deeds, and that the Land Commission should make rules and prescribe forms for the purpose of carrying this provision into effect, contended that it was in the interest both of those who were to be the purchasers and of the vendor that the security should be as good as possible. In his opinion, this was a singularly favourable opportunity for providing machinery for the registering of land which was purchased.
Amendment moved, after Clause 16, page 8, insert the following Clause:—

43
"(1.) Upon the completion of any sale under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, or the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, the title to each holding shall be recorded in the office of the Land Commission, in such manner and form as the Land Commission shall prescribe.
"(2.) The vesting order or conveyance transferring such holding shall not be registered in the Registry of Deeds, but in lieu thereof a memorandum stating that each vesting order or conveyance has been made and recorded, shall be lodged by the Land Commission in the Registry of Deeds, and shall be registered therein.
"(3.) From and after the recording of any such title to a holding as aforesaid, the operation of the statutes relating to the Registry of Deeds in Ireland shall, as from the date of such recording and with respect to any subsequent dealings with such holding by way of transfer or charge or otherwise howsoever, cease to be applicable thereto.
"(4.) All transfers and mortgages of any holding so recorded, and all charges, incumbrances, bonds, writings, deeds, and things whatsoever which may commence to affect such holdings after the recording of the title thereto, shall be recorded in the office of the Land Commission, and shall not be registered either in the Registry of Deeds or in the Registry of Judgments.
"(5.) All such transfers, mortgages, charges, incumbrances, bonds, writings, deeds, and things, shall, as between themselves, take priority according to the date at which they are recorded.
"(6.) The Land Commission shall make rules and prescribe forms for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this section."—(The Lord Monteagle.)
LORD CASTLETOWNsaid, he hoped that the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Ashbourne) would make such arrangements with the Land Commissioners as would enable them to register the transfer of holdings, so that in future any holding could be easily traced.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that this was a matter which required close and nice consideration, on account of the question of priorities which was introduced by the section. He could not interfere with the arrangements of the Land Commissioners; but he would consider the question and would apply to those upon whom it was sought to cast the administration of this matter. the proposed clause, he thought, was not workable.
LORD THRINGsaid, he thought that it was desirable, in the interest of both tenant and landlord, that there should be a system of registry of title. He could not see that there was the slightest difficulty in the way.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he did not know how it could be given effect to;
44
but the object which the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) sought to obtain by this Amendment was one of the utmost importance. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Ashbourne) had said that he would obtain the opinion of the Land Commission upon it; and he (Lord Herschell) would admit that it was necessary that the noble and learned Lord opposite should consult with those whose business it was to administer the Act; but, as that body might naturally see with an exaggerating eye the difficulties that might arise, he hoped at the same time that the noble and learned Lord would exercise his own independent judgment in the matter.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that a system of registration must be compulsory to be of any effect, and he thought that this was a good opportunity for establishing it.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Appeals.
Clause 17 (Provision for hearing of appeals under the Land Act).
EARL SPENCERsaid, that it might be convenient if he made some general remarks upon the clause before they came to the Amendments which were upon the Paper. The Government were strengthening the Appeal Courts of the Land Commission, with the view, presumably, of meeting the amount of work that would come before it if this Bill became law. At the present moment he understood that the arrears pending before the Commission numbered only 3,000, and he expected that the Commission would shortly reduce them. He further understood that a certain arrangement with regard to three months' notice would still further clear the list of a great many cases. He would like to hear the views of the Government with regard to this matter. He thought that the clause as it stood left a great deal too much to the discretion of the Irish Government. It practically left it to the Lord Lieutenant to constitute two Courts for the purpose of hearing appeals. If he was not mistaken, he believed that under the Act of 1881 it was necessary that the Courts of Appeal should consist of three persons, and he imagined that it was the intention of the Government now that the Courts should be so constituted. In his opinion the

45
Lord Lieutenant had too muck power thrown upon him. Judges of the High Court could be introduced for the purpose of carrying out the Act; and if the Lord Lieutenant were given the powers which it was proposed to confer upon him, he might even make one of them preside over the Court. He did not sup-pose, however, that that was the intention of the Government. The Court had originally consisted of Mr. Justice O'Hagan, Mr. Vernon—whose death they all deplored, and who had done such admirable service—and Mr. Litton. Mr. Litton had now been engaged for many years as one of the Chief Commissioners, and it would be unfair that he should be liable to be superseded in the Presidency of the second Court. With his great experience and legal knowledge it would be far bettor that he should preside in a second Court of Appeal than that oven a Judge of the High Court should do so. Then the clause provided that the Lord Lieutenant might nominate a County Court Judge to be a member of the Court to hear appeals. There were County Court Judges and County Court Judges, and it would be well if the names of the County Court Judges eligible to be so nominated were put into the Bill. He reserved his right to move Amendments to this clause on the Report.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that one of the complaints about the administration of the Land Act of 1881 had been the delay in the hearing of appeals, which was often as long as three years. There were now as many as 3,000 or 4,000 appeals waiting to be heard, and, therefore, it was deemed advisable to take powers in this Bill for constituting, if necessary, a second Court of Appeal to expedite their hearing. Mr. Justice O'Hagan would naturally preside in one Court, and the Judge of the High Court, who would be called upon to assist, would naturally preside over the second, and would, of course, take precedence of Mr. Litton. With regard to the County Court Judges, he could not agree that it would be well to name them in the Bill. The Bill was constructed, not on the basis of creating new officers at great expense, or to provide a new and continuous Appellate Division, but to give power to the Executive, from time to time, to make the appointments when the necessity arose
46
for them. He thought the clause was one that was likely to work fairly and satisfactorily.
LORD HERSCHELLasked, whether a County Court Judge called in to assist would take precedence of Mr. Commissioner Litton?
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he had not considered that delicate point; but he felt inclined to think that Mr. Litton would have precedence over a County Court Judge.
THE EARL OF ERNEproposed, as an Amendment, that the additional members of the Land Commission to be appointed should be laymen, and not lawyers. There was, he thought, an undue proportion of lawyers upon it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYstated that they did not propose that the County Court Judges selected to administer the Act should be County Court Judges and Land Commissioners too. Somebody else would be appointed for the time to do their County Court work.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he would point out that the constitution of the Land Commission would have to be considered in August, 1888; and if they did not appoint officials who had already posts which gave them permanence of tenure, they must supply their places by men who would only be employed for a few months. That was not desirable. Her Majesty's Government-did not suggest that they would have permanent work; but they might be occasionally required to assist in the Commission to keep down arrears.
EARL CADOGANsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. The Land Commission would by effluxion of time come to an end next year, and it would then have to be reconstituted. It would not be well to anticipate that now.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ERNE THE EARL OF ERNE moved an Amendment, with the object of excluding County Court Judges from service upon the divisions of the Land Commission to be hereafter constituted. He did not for a moment doubt the capacity of the County Court Judges to fulfil the duties which the clause would impose upon them, but he thought that they were already sufficiently burdened with work.
VISCOUNT DE VESCIsupported the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYpointed out that the County Court Judges who were appointed Land Commissioners would not have to discharge their ordinary duties, some other official being appointed to do the work. Consequently, the argument that they would be over-burdened fell to the ground.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that the tribunal must be composed somehow. The precedent followed by the Government in this case was drawn from a Bill drafted three years ago, when Sir George Trevelyan was Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was not thought desirable to fill the tribunal with officials who did not hold permanent appointments. The Land Commission must be reconstituted before August, 1888, and during the interval it would be well to take advantage of the services of men of experience, whose tenure of office was durable. If the County Court Judges were excluded from the appellate tribunal, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find other permanent officials squally well fitted to discharge the functions of that Court. Besides, they would only serve in case their assistance was needed to keep down appeals.
EARL SPENCERsaid, he still maintained that it would be much better to specify accurately the constitution of the Court in the Bill than to leave it for settlement by the Lord Lieutenant. He hoped that the noble and learned Lord would consent to name the County Court Judges who would be appointed. He also thought that power should be given to the Lord Chancellor to direct any Judge appointed after the passing of the Act to sit, if necessary, in this Court of Appeal on land cases.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 18 (Remuneration of County Court Judge).
Clause 19 (Procedure on appeals).
LORD CASTLETOWN (for Lord SUDELEY), in moving to insert words providing that the independent valuer shall, in all cases, report to the Commissioners his opinion as to the amount of the judicial rent of the holding, and the basis on which he has arrived at such opinion; and shall accompany his Report with an Ordnance map of the holding, and a statement of such facts
48
and circumstances as may be required for the purpose of enabling the Land Commission to form a judgment as to the subject-matter of such Report; and, further, that the appointment of valuers shall be vested in the Lord Lieutenant, such valuers to be sworn in the same manner as Judges of the High Court of Justice are sworn, said, he believed that would be a very useful provision, and that it would result in producing a valuable history of the holding.
Amendment moved,
To add at the end of clause—"Such valuer shall in all cases report to the Commissioners his opinion as to the amount of the judicial rent of the holding, and the basis on which he has arrived at such opinion; and shall accompany his report with an ordnance map of the holding and a statement of such facts and circumstances as may be required for the purpose of enabling the Land Commission to form a judgment as to the subject-matter of such report. Every such report shall be filed, and may be inspected by the parties, a reasonable time before the sitting of the Land Commission, or the Division thereof which is to hear the appeal, or re-hear the case to which such report refers; and any party shall he entitled to an office or certified copy thereof on payment of such reasonable charge as shall be prescribed.
"The power of appointing valuers under the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, and this Act, is hereby vested in the Lord Lieutenant, who shall, on the requisition of the Land Commission, exercise the same; and every commissioner, sub-commissioner, and valuer appointed after the passing of this Act, shall be sworn in the same manner as judges in the High Court of Justice are now by law required to be sworn."—(The Lord Castletown.)
EARL CADOGANsaid, he was under the impression that the object desired could be attained by rules; but he should accept the Amendment with certain alterations as to phraseology, which he should be prepared to state on Report.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remission of Local Rates.
Clause 20 (Remission of local rates).
On the Motion of The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl Cadogan) the following Amendment made:—
"(4.) Where any poor rate is remitted under this section in respect of land let at a rent, the third section of the Act of the Session of the sixth and seventh years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter 92, shall apply."
On the Motion of The Lord MONTEAGLE, the following Amendment made:—

49
("5.) No poor-rate collector or barony con-stable shall be required to pay under his warrant any rate or cess which has been remitted by an order under this section."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that at that point (11.30) he must appeal to the noble Marquess at the head of the Government to allow the further consideration of the clauses of the Bill in Committee to be now adjourned.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not propose that they should have an All-night Sitting on their Bill; but he would now consent to report Progress, and desired to proceed again with the discussion in Committee tomorrow. With regard to an adjournment for the further consideration of the Bill, as had been hinted at in some quarters, over the Whitsun holidays, he did not think that, if such an adjournment took place, it would make much difference. This Bill depended upon the measure in the other House, and at present the sister Bill was not making much progress. They did not propose to send this Bill to the other House until the other measure was safe from its dangers there. There was no absolute pressure for their speed.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he hoped the noble Marquess would see his way to go on with the Bill after the holidays. The amended clauses were of vital importance, and their Lordships had no time to consider Amendments. They could not possibly do it before the holidays.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he had a very important Amendment to propose on Clause 21, the object of which was to render the Bankruptcy Clauses wholly unnecessary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that if their Lordships did not take the Bill up to-morrow its consideration must be put off until after Whitsuntide. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland had business to transact in Ireland, and Friday was the only other day conveniently at their disposal. On the whole, therefore, he thought it would be better to go on, and the Bill would be put down for to-morrow (Tuesday), when, if their Lordships should still be of opinion that there had not been sufficient opportunity for considering the important Clauses 21, 22, and 23, which followed the point at which they had
50
adjourned, the Government would consent either to adjourn the further progress of the Bill until after Whitsun, or would have the measure re-committed in regard to those particular clauses.
House resumed; House to be again in Committee To-morrow.

JUBILEE SERVICE IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY.
Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose of arranging the distribution of tickets of admission to be given to Peers on the occasion of the Jubilee Thanksgiving Service to he held in Westminster Abbey on 21st June."—(The Lord Chamberlain.)
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half past Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.