HL Deb 14 December 1906 vol 167 cc782-806

Order of the Day read for receiving the Report of Amendments.

LORD DENMAN

My Lords, in rising to move that this Report be now received I desire to make a brief statement with regard to some observations made by my noble friend opposite, Lord Mayo, on an earlier stage of the Bill. I ought no doubt to have challenged the statement when it was made, but I ask the leave of your Lordships to call attention to it on this occasion. The statement made by the noble Earl was to the effect that Sir Antony MacDonnell went down to Loughrea to quell a disturbance that arose there, and threw out a suggestion that he would facilitate the passage of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill through Parliament or possibly introduce some particular clause into the Bill. I desire to say, on Sir Antony's behalf, that that was not the case. He went down to Loughrea to quell what might have been a very awkward disturbance, and he was successful in the accomplishment of that very difficult task; but he gave no such pledge and made no suck statement as the noble Earl suggested in his speech the other night. This is what occurred at the conference at Loughrea. A certain gentleman named Duffy asserted that the Under-Secretary had given some undertaking with regard to the passage of this Bill through Parliament; but Sir Antony MacDonnell then said— I gave no such pledge from the beginning to the end of this transaction. The Chief Secretary has given no pledge in connection with this business, and I myself have given no pledge whatever. I have most carefully avoided the discussion of any matter except the question of the cessation of resistance to the execution of the sheriff's writ. The whole of the representations made by Sir Antony at the conference held at Loughrea were as to the absolute unwisdom of pushing to any further extremes the resistance to the execution of the sheriff's writ. I am quite sure the noble Earl opposite would not desire to misrepresent the action or words of anyone, and, after what I have said, he will probably wish to withdraw what he stated the other night. I think it is only the barest justice to a distinguished public servant like Sir Antony MacDonnell that I should make the brief statement that I have thought it my duty to make on this Motion.

Moved, "That this Report be now Teceived."—(Lord Denman.)

THE EARL OF MAYO

My Lords, I should like to say, first, that I am extremely obliged to the noble Lord for his courtesy in giving me notice last night of his intention to make this statement. I am very sorry that any words that fell from me should have hurt Sir Antony MacDonnell's feelings. He is an official for whom I have the greatest respect. His Indian record was quite sufficient, especially for one who bears the name I bear, to make me respect him. If Sir Antony MacDonnell's visit to Loughrea was construed by everybody in Ireland to mean quite a different thing from what he really went down for, it was the fault of His Majesty's Government; because in May, on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Attorney-General for Ireland pointed out that— It was the principle of compensation for disturbance as applied to agricultural holdings that undoubtedly led to the fixing of fair rents, and, directly they admitted the principle of compensation for disturbance in the case of town tenants, it became necessary to consider the propriety of fixing fair rents, and he thought the House should pause and consider whether it was right to allow rents to be fixed on all shops and houses held for the purpose of residence. Then in June the Loughrea evictions took place, and the whole of the Press in Ireland took Sir Antony MacDonnell's visit to mean that the Town Tenants Bill was going to be taken up by the Government. This view was taken not only in the Unionist Press, but the Freeman's Journal stated that the part taken by Sir Antony MacDonnell in the Loughrea incident pledged him to make representations to the Govern- ment as to the necessity of passing this session a moderate and sufficient Town Tenants Bill; and that Sir Antony's representations could not, without personal slight, be refused. Then there was a Town Tenants League meeting in Dublin, presided over by Mr. Field, M.P., and at that meeting the Secretary of the League reiterated exactly what the Freeman's Journal had said. The matter with regard to Sir Antony MacDonnell is between Sir Antony and myself. I repeat that I am very sorry that any words that fell from me should have hurt Sir Antony's feelings, and when I see him in Dublin, as no doubt I shortly will, I shall have pleasure in telling him so.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

My Lords, I am very sorry to prolong this discussion at a moment when your Lord ships want to get on with the business. But I must say this. I know Sir Antony MacDonnell very well. I have known him for many years. I was associated with him in India and know him to be a man of the highest possible honour, and I am quite sure the noble Earl opposite fully accepts Sir Antony MacDonnell's statement.

THE EARL OF MAYO

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

I am very glad to hear that the noble Earl accepts that statement. It really does not matter what was said in this newspaper or in that. The question is whether Sir Antony MacDonnell's statement is to be received or not. The noble Earl frankly and honourably accepts Sir Antony's statement; and there is nothing more to be said.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I think we are indebted to my noble friend behind me (the Earl of Mayo) for having elicited from the noble Lord who spoke just now a categorical contradiction of a mischievous rumour which has been widely circulated with regard to an alleged transaction between the Under-Secretary and persons involved in the regrettable occurrences at Loughrea. I venture to express agreement with what was said by my noble friend just now when he suggested to your Lordships that if any misconception arose on this point it was very largely due to the sudden volte face of His Majesty's Government upon this most important question of compensation for disturbance. My noble friend quoted from the statements of the Attorney-General for Ireland—

THE EARL OF MAYO

I took the passage from Hansard.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

The noble Earl quoted a passage showing that as lately as May last His Majesty's Government were apparently wholly opposed to the principle of compensation which we now find in this Bill. The principle of compensation is now accepted by the Government; and in the circumstances it really is not surprising that people with ingenious minds should search for a reason to explain so sudden a change of front. Anyhow, I hope the discussion which has taken place has cleared the air, and I do not desire to prolong it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE EARL OF MAYO

moved an Amendment to Clause 2 (limitation of tenant's right in certain cases), the object of which was to make it clear that the granting of a building lease was regarded in the Bill as a valuable consideration. He said the question whether a building lease was a valuable consideration was a matter of great dispute among lawyers. In the House of Commons the Attorney-General for Ireland had declared that the lease in itself was a valuable consideration. If that was so, the words in his Amendment should be inserted to make that point clear and to prevent litigation. He felt that there was really very little margin left in Ireland for argument by legal gentlemen. Already a great deal of the money of landlords and tenants had gone into the pockets of the lawyers, and unless the Committee agreed to the insertion of the words "including a building lease" in this clause he saw a great prospect of more money going in the same direction. On broad grounds he thought it advisable that his Amendment should be inserted.

Amendment moved—

"In page 2, line 23, after the word 'consideration' to insert the words 'including a building lease."—(The Earl of Mayo.)

LORD DENMAN

did not think any very great harm would be caused if these words were inserted, but he submitted that they were unnecessary, as the point was already covered by subsection (4) of Clause 3.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said that was the subsection the noble Earl was seeking to amend.

LORD DENMAN

said his point was that building leases were already, by this subsection, excluded from the provisions of the Bill. He understood, moreover, that the words in the subsection met the objection of Sir E. Carson on this point.

LORD ASHBOURNE

thought it would be wiser and more prudent to insert the words of the Amendment. He had no doubt that the Government and the Attorney-General for Ireland intended this clause to have the effect of excluding building leases, but it was a great deal better to say so clearly. The insertion of the words could do no possible harm.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of Crewe)

The point is not a very important one, and I am anxious not to waste any time over it. But I should like to put it to the noble and learned Lord whether, if you use the words "a valuable consideration" and then particularly mention a building lease, it would not seem to imply that a building lease is not a contract for valuable consideration.

LORD ASHBOURNE

The word "including" would meet that.

THE EARL OF CREWE

If the Amendment is pressed we shall not resist it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DUNBOYNE

had three Amendments on the Paper to Clause 3, the effect of which was to make Clause 3 read— Where a tenant of a holding proposes to make improvements in his holding, he shall send to his landlord notice, in the prescribed manner, of his intention to make such improvements, together with a specification and plan of the proposed improvements, and if the landlord or his known agent, does not within three months after the receipt of the notice send notice of objection, in the prescribed manner, to the tenant, the tenant may proceed to make the proposed improvements; but if the landlord or his agent sends such notice, etc.

Amendment moved—

"In page 2, line 27, to leave out the word 'or' and to insert the word 'and."—(Lord Dunboyne.)

LORD DENMAN

said it might save time if he stated at once that the Government were willing to accept the Amendment just moved and the other two Amendments to this Clause standing in the name of Lord Dunboyne.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved—

"In page 2, line 28, to leave out the words 'in his absence'; and in line 32, after the word 'landlord' to insert the words 'or his agent."—(Lord Dunboyne.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

moved an Amendment to alter the interest on the sum payable for a period of twenty five years from £3 per cent. per annum to £4 per cent. He said it was his intention to have moved this Amendment in the Committee stage, but by some mistake the Amendment was not put on the Paper. The subsection in which his Amendment came was intended to provide that the landlord might, if he chose, make the necessary improvements himself. He thought their Lord ships would all agree that this was a very desirable provision, as it would prevent much friction and litigation on the termination of a lease. It was provided that repayment might be made in two ways. The landlord might either charge the tenant a sum not exceeding £5 per cent. per annum on the money expended, or, if the tenant preferred it, the tenant might agree to pay such annual sum for a period of twenty-five years as would repay the outlay in the said period, with interest at the rate of £3 per cent. per annum. His Amendment was to insert "£4" instead of "£3" per cent. His reasons for moving this Amendment were two. In the first place, owing to the legislation of the last thirty years, landlords in Ireland were impoverished and had not the capital to effect the improvements and would necessarily have to borrow; and, in the second place, again owing to the action of legislation, the value of land had depreciated in Ireland and it was extremely difficult for landlords to borrow at all on it. It was quite evident, at any rate, that no landlord would be able to borrow at less than 4 per cent. If the Government could not see their way to accept his Amendment he suggested, as an alternative course, that they should permit the Board of Works to advance money to landlords for this purpose, the landlord in no case charging the tenant more than he paid himself. The Board of Works charged interest at the rate of 3½ per cent. on the money lent by them to landlords; that was to say, the Government, as represented by the Board of Works, did not think it safe to lend money at less than 3½ per cent.; yet in this Bill they were expecting the landlord to be satisfied with only 3 per cent.

Amendment moved—

"In page 3, line 10, to leave out the word 'three' and to insert the word 'four".—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)

LORD DENMAN

regretted that he was unable to accept the Amendment. The noble Lord had argued as if the landlord would be compelled under the Bill to borrow money. This was only a provisional clause empowering the landlord, if he chose, to execute the improvement himself. There was no obligation on the landlord to borrow money, and therefore he did not see why the rate of interest should be raised in order to enable him to do so. The Government were of opinion that 3 per cent was a reasonable rate of interest, and that 4 per cent. would in the circumstances be exorbitant. The landlord had perfect security for the repayment of the money he expended since he had a reversion on the property and would be repaid the capital sum in twenty-five years.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

admitted that it was only optional as far as the landlord was concerned, but said it was eminently desirable that the improvement should be made by the landlord and not by the tenant, in order to avoid the litigation and friction that would otherwise constantly arise. As to 4 per cent. being an exorbitant rate of interest, he repeated that the Board of Works charged 3½ per cent.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. It really is a question of security, and the security for the money is so good that there is no reason whatever for a rate of more than 3 per cent. per annum If the rate of interest were higher on such a gilt-edged security as this I imagine landlords would be tempted to execute improvements of all kinds in anticipation of obtaining this remarkably good investment for their money.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

agreed with the noble Earl the Lord President that 3 per cent. was a sufficiently high rate of interest. It had occurred to him that the tenant would be in considerable doubt whether to consent to be charged 5 per cent. on the outlay incurred, or 3 per cent. and a sufficient sum to liquidate the cost of the improvement in twenty-five years. He thought it would be simpler if a specified sum were mentioned showing how much more it would cost to liquidate the outlay in twenty-five years.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I am not quite sure whether I agree with the noble Earl the Lord President in thinking that an investment of this kind is a gilt-edged one which would afford great attractions to any one desiring to invest his money with absolutely complete security. But be that as it may, I cannot advise my noble friend to press his Amendment. There is some force in what the noble Lord opposite has said as to the matter being an optional one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DENMAN

moved an Amendment to Clause 5 (compensation for unreasonable disturbance) to omit the words "for reasons inconsistent with good estate management" from the statement of conditions under which disturbance would entitle the tenant to compensation. He said the words in question had been inserted at the instance of Lord Donoughmore, but he did not find that they were necessary.

Amendment moved—

"In page 4, line 9, to leave out from the word 'cause' to the word 'terminates' in line 10."—(Lord Denman.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENMAN

moved an Amendment to the clause providing that the tenant should be entitled to compensation for "the loss of goodwill and the expense" which he incurred in connection with removal instead of for "the loss or expense" so incurred. This Amendment was one to which His Majesty's Government attached very great importance. Clause 5 was not at all applicable to the case of shops and business premises unless words were inserted to secure the right of the tenant to compensation for goodwill. The proportion which goodwill bore in the case of an agricultural holding was infinitesimally small compared to goodwill in regard to shop tenancies. Goodwill was a thing which was recognised at law. It was something which could be bought and sold. Compensation for goodwill had been recognised in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. He would take the instance of the Holborn and Strand Improvement. In that case the London County Council had to compensate the landlords for taking their premises and also the tenants of the shops for the loss of their goodwill. The principle, therefore, was recognised in an English Act of Parliament, and it should certainly be included in this clause. As the clause at present stood, it only compensated the tenant for little more than the expense of removal. This did not go at all far enough to meet what they considered just to the tenant. The Government, as he had said, attached vital importance to this Amendment, and he hoped noble Lords opposite would see their way to accept it.

Amendment moved—

"In page 4, line 19, to leave out the word 'or' and to insert the words 'of goodwill and the,' and to leave out the words 'the tenant."—(Lord Denman.)

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said he would not pretend for an instant that he liked the Amendment, but he admitted that there was some force in the noble Lord's argument that the conditions of goodwill in towns were different from those in the case of agricultural holdings. Therefore he did not intend to vote against the Amendment, although he did not like it a bit.

THE EARL OF MAYO

did not see why the word "expense" should be retained. Surely compensation for loss of goodwill was quite sufficient. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider that point.

LORD DENMAN

said he would consider the point between this and the next stage, but he could hold out no promise in regard to it.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

hoped the Government would retain the word "expense." Compensation limited to five years rent appeared to him to be little enough for the loss a tenant would sustain in the matter of goodwill. The expense a tenant might be put to in removing his goods and chattels, probably from one town to another, would be a serious burden. He hoped the Government would not consent to any limitation of the compensation in the way suggested by Lord Mayo.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I should like to put it to Lord Mayo whether he thinks it is really worth while to leave this matter open, because I can hold out no hope to him that we can reconsider it. There are bound, I think, to be cases where the question of expense must enter. The word "expense" has been in the Bill ever since it has been before your Lordships, and the noble Earl took no exception to it before. I hope he will be content to let the word remain.

THE EARL OF MAYO

I agree.

LORD CASTLETOWN

asked whether, in the event of a shop being sold up by the tenant's creditors, the landlord would be obliged to compensate the outgoing tenant for the goodwill, or whether the goodwill would go to the insolvent tenant's creditors.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I am afraid that, so far as that is a purely legal question, I am not competent to answer it. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will reply. But I certainly have no intention of plunging into these deep waters.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Loreburn)

I have not closely studied the Bill with a view to this point. But if any person is entitled to compensation of any sort he would have to account for that to his creditors in the event of bankruptcy. It would be part of his estate divisible among the creditors.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENMAN

moved to leave out the word "one" and to insert the word "five" in the proviso which read— Provided that such compensation shall in no case exceed one years rent of the holding.

Amendment moved—

"In page 4, line 22, to leave out the word 'one' and to insert the word 'five."—(Lord Denman.)

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said the Government had previously expressed their willingness to agree to three years, and, though his Irish nature would prompt him to offer two years in order to try and strike a bargain, he would accept three years in the Government were still willing to agree to that.

THE EARL OF CREWE

As the noble Earl puts it in that way we will also accept three years.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENMAN

moved an Amendment to extend the operation of the clause to premises occupied "to a substantial extent for business purposes.' This was, he said, a matter on which they hoped to come to some agreement with noble Lords opposite. He understood that Lord Ashbourne desired to insert the words "trade or" before the words "business purposes." If that would make the Amendment acceptable to noble Lords opposite he would be glad to have those words inserted.

Amendment moved—

"In page 4, line 31, to leave out the word 'partly' and to insert the words 'to a substantial extent."—(Lord Denman.)

LORD ASHBOURNE

I think it would read better with the words "trade or" inserted.

LORD DENMAN

Then I will add them.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said he would rather have the word "business" out. Business covered an immense number of cases which trade would not cover. Judging from the Bill, the intention of the Government was to protect shopkeepers; but the word "business" would, he was afraid, include stockbrokers, solicitors, land agents, commission agents, and many other people not intended to be covered by the Bill.

THE EARL OF CREWE

The noble Earl is not correct in saying that the Bill is intended to apply to shopkeepers only. Anyone who has lived in Ireland, as I have, must have been struck by the enormous number of small professional persons in that country. I confess I do not quite see why a solicitor or a small country doctor should not come under the purview of this Bill just as much as a shopkeeper. The arguments which apply to one seem to me to apply equally to the others, and I am afraid for that reason we should have to oppose the omission of the word "business."

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I think this illustrates the difficulty, when you are departing, as you are in this Bill, from sound principle, of drawing a scientific frontier with the object of restricting those departures. I do not see how such a frontier as my noble friend Lord Donoughmore desires can be drawn, and I therefore reluctantly come to the conclusion that these small business and professional people could not equitably be excluded from the compensation accorded to their neighbours.

THE EARL OF LEITRIM

said he would have thought that solicitors would make sufficient from the troubles that would arise under the Bill without coming within the compensation provision.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I should like to know how it is proposed that the words should read. I understand that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has amended his Amendment by adding the words "trade or," and that it is now porposed that the sub-section should read— This section shall apply only to houses shops and other buildings occupied wholly or to a substantial extent for trade or business purposes.

LORD DENMAN

That is so.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

*LORD CLONBROCK

said the Amendment which stood in his name proposed to exempt from the operation of the clause tenancies of three different kinds. First, he proposed to exempt tenancies from year to year created after the passing of this Act. He did so because these tenancies would be entered into by people with their eyes open, and with a full knowledge of their position. Secondly, he proposed to exempt leases made after the passing of the Act for terms of thirty-one years, or for a life or lives. Thirty-one years was a long period, and, as was pointed out by the Duke of Northumberland in the discussion on the Land Tenure Bill, a man could not complain of having to leave his house at the expiration of a term to which he had himself agreed. The third kind of tenancy he referred to were tenancies from year to year existing at the passing of the Act where the rent of the holding was at or over £30 per annum. He thought the same argument applied to those tenancies. The persons concerned were very well able to make their own bargains. He would like to refer to a remark made by the Lord President of the Council when the Bill was in Committee. The noble Earl seemed to think that Irish tenants as a rule were an ingenuous and confiding set of persons utterly at the mercy of the wily and unscrupulous landlord, if such there were. The noble Earl seemed to have taken his idea of an Irishman from the Irishman usually depicted on the stage, who capers about in the highest possible spirits, with a complete disregard for such considerations as money, or the future, or anything else except the enjoyment of the moment; but anyone who had had experience of that class in Ireland would know that they were for the most part remarkably astute and had a very keen eye for the main chance. Whatever qualities they might be deficient in which might militate against their success in life it was certainly not want of intelligence or concern for what they conceived to be their own interests. He hoped the provision in the clause would be limited in the way he proposed.

Amendment moved—

"In page 4, line 31, after the word 'purposes' to insert the words, 'and which are held (a) under tenancies from year to year created after the passing of this Act, or (b) under leases made after the passing of this Act, for terms of less than thirty-one years, or for a life or lives, or (c) under tenancies from year to year existing at the passing of this Act where the rent of the holding is under £30 per annum."(Lord Clonbrock.)

LORD DENMAN

said the Government were quite unable to entertain the Amendment, which in their opinion was most unreasonable. Its effect would be to exclude those cases which it was hoped would come within the opera-of the clause. Under the Act of 1870 existing tenancies from year to year came within the operation of the Act if the rent was not more than £100. The noble Lord proposed to substitute £30, which was an important difference. The Government attached very great importance to this matter, and if their Lordships pressed the Amendment the consequences might be very far-reaching. He desired, however, if possible, to meet the noble Lord, and as a solution of the difficulty he suggested that the Amendment should stand down to the letter (c), and that after the word "under," which followed, the words "tenancies from year to year "should be struck out and the words "contracts of tenancy" substituted; and that the remainder of the Amendment should stand with this exception, that the words "one hundred pounds "be substituted for thirty pounds in the last line of the Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

asked Lord Clonbrock to inform the House to what the Bill would apply if his Amendment were carried. As he understood it, it would not apply to the past, to the present, or to the future. What effect, therefore, would the Bill have if the Amendment were adopted?

LORD ASHBOURNE

said there was no doubt the Amendment was open to the criticism that it would substantially affect the width of the application of the clause, and he quite understood the ground of objection taken by the Government. Perhaps Lord Clonbrock would consider whether he could recast the wording and put it in a shape less objectionable to the Government, and whether thirty-one year leases could not be placed in a category that could be dealt with separately. The simplicity of the suggestion to substitute £100 for £30 was interesting to any one acquainted with the extremely small rents that obtained in country towns in Ireland.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I am afraid we shall not be able to go beyond the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Denman. In the interest of the saving of time, if we could come to terms on these words now it would be a very great advantage. Your Lordships will see that to postpone any point of substance to the Third Reading at the stage of the session at which we have arrived is a difficult matter.

*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE

asked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to state exactly what the Government's proposal was.

LORD DENMAN

replied that the Government accepted Lord Clonbrock's Amendment down to the words "life or lives." After that it would read— or (c) under contracts of tenancy existing at the passing of this Act where the rent of the holding is under £100 per annum.

LORD ASHBOURNE

was still unable to understand how the Amendment in this form could effect the object desired.

THE EARL OF CREWE

We accept (a) and (b) of Lord Clonbrock's Amendment, not because we like them very much but because we are obliged to; but that is on the understanding that (c) as amended in the terms read out by my noble friend also forms part of the clause.

LORD ASHBOURNE

asked Lord Denman to kindly read the clause as it would then stand.

LORD DENMAN

The clause as it is proposed to be amended, if Lord Clonbrock accepts our alterations at the end of the Amendment, would read— This section shall apply only to houses, shops, and other buildings occupied wholly or to a substantial extent for trade or business purposes, and which are held (a) under tenancies from year to year created after the passing of this Act, or (b) under leases made after the passing of this Act for terms of less than thirty-one years, or for a life or lives, or (c) under contracts of tenancy existing at the passing of this Act where the rent of the holding is under £100 per annum.

*LORD CLONBROCK

said that if the clause read in that way he feared there must be a mistake in the drafting of his Amendment, because otherwise the tenancies which he proposed to exempt from the operation of the clause would be included.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

suggested that the difficulty might be got over by inserting the word "not" before the word "held" at the beginning of Lord Clonbrock's Amendment.

THE EARL OF CREWE

Yes, to carry out Lord Clonbrock's intention something of that kind is required.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I really do not know how it is proposed that this Amendment should be dealt with; but it is not my business.

THE EARL OF CREWE

Would not the noble Lord's point be met by inserting the words "other than those" which are held, etc.?

LORD ASHBOURNE

said his advice to Lord Clonbrock would be to take the words as suggested by the Government and then consider them before Third Reading. So far as he could tell, the clause did not even now read correctly, but when they saw it as amended in the print of the Bill they could consider what further alteration was necessary.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

then put the Amendment as read by Lord Denman, with the addition, at the beginning of the Amendment as it appeared on the Paper, of the words "other than those "held (a), etc.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BARRYMORE

moved to add to Clause 9 a new sub-section providing that "notwithstanding anything in this section, a tenant of a holding whose rent is not less than £30 per annum, shall not be entitled to make any claim for compensation under any provision of the Bill in cases where the tenant has contracted in writing with his landlord that he will not make any such claim." The Government, he thought, could not wish to destroy the opportunity of allowing tenants to contract out of the Act if they wished, and especially those who were capable of understanding it. A rent of £30 in Ireland represented a very substantial man who was quite capable of making any kind of contract.

Amendment moved—

"In page 5, line 18, after the word, 'compulsion' to insert the following new subsection: (2) Notwithstanding anything in this section, a tenant of a holding whose rent is not less than thirty pounds per annum, shall not be entitled to make any claim for compensation under any provision of this Act in cases where the tenant has contracted in writing with his landlord that he will not make any such claim."—(Lord Barrymore.)

LORD DENMAN

said that he did not like the Amendment, because it weakened the clause. The point of doubt and difficulty was the exact figure of rent at which it was reasonable to suppose that the tenant was not likely to yield to any undue pressure exercised by the landlord. He preferred the existing figure of the Act of 1881—namely, £150 a year. He should like, if noble Lords opposite could see their way, to increase the figure above that suggested in the Amendment.

LORD ASHBOURNE

thought that if any limitation were put in at all it should be a real one. He did not contend that £30 was absolutely the correct figure, but £150 would be a fanciful limitation.

THE EARL OF CREWE

It is important in considering this matter to have regard to the wording of the clause as it stands. I will read it— Any contract (other than a contract either to make or not to make an improvement) made after the passing of this Act, by virtue of which a tenant would be, directly or indirectly, deprived of his right to obtain compensation under this Act, shall be void unless the court adjudicating upon a claim for compensation by such tenant shall, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, be of opinion that such contract was reasonable and that it was entered into by the parties without any direct or indirect compulsion. If the latter part of the clause was not there I think there would be far more to be said for the noble Lord's suggestion than there is. There is nothing to prevent people making contracts to stand out of this compensation question, and I have no doubt a considerable number will. In fact I should think that in the cases of large businesses it would probably be almost the invariable rule. In a case of that kind, supposing a man were to go back on his contract and attempt all the same to get compensation, the court would point out that he obviously had not been a subject of compulsion and consequently he must hold by his contract. I should have thought that was a sufficient general safeguard to everybody, but if the noble Lord thinks it is important to leave out people on a larger scale I shall be prepared to offer the figure of £100 as in the other case. I am afraid I could not go beyond that, for the reason that the clause as it stands seems to me to offer a perfectly reasonable protection to everybody who wants to stand out of the Bill.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said this was not a very big point. His own view was that they were sufficiently safeguarded under the clause as it stood, and he for one would be inclined to appeal to Lord Barrymore not press the Amendment.

LORD DUNBOYNE

intimated his intention of moving an Amendment on Third Reading putting the onus of proof on a tenant who had entered into a contract to show that it was unreasonable or obtained by duress instead of putting the onus on the landlord to prove the contrary.

LORD BARRYMORE

said that as his noble friends around him seemed to think there was no very great value in the Amendment he would withdraw it, but he confessed that he abandoned it with regret.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DENMAN

moved to omit subsections (3) and (4), which dealt with appeals, and to insert a new clause. He explained that the new clause had been drafted to meet an objection of noble Lords opposite, and he understood they were not unwilling to accept it, possibly in preference to the new sub-section standing on the Paper in the name of Lord Dunboyne.

Amendment moved—

"In pages 5 and 6, to leave out sub-sections (3) and (4); and to insert the following new clause: (1) Any person aggrieved by any determination of the county court under this Act may appeal either—(a) to the Judge of Assize or a Judge of the High Court as the case may be in accordance with the provisions of the County Courts (Ireland) Acts, 1851 to 1889, relating to appeals in the case of ordinary civil bills; or (b) to the Court of Appeal in accordance with rules of the Supreme Court. Provided that if in any proceedings appeals are taken both to the Judge of Assize or a Judge of the High Court and to the Court of Appeal, the appeals shall be heard together by such judge, and a further appeal may be taken from his determination to the Court of Appeal in accordance with rules of the Supreme Court."—(Lord Denman.)

LORD DUNBOYNE

had the following Amendment on the Paper— In pages 5 and 6, to leave out sub-sections 3 and 4 and insert the following new sub-section: '(3) An appeal from any determination of the county court under this Act shall, at the option of the party appealing, lie either to the Court of Appeal or to the Judge of Assize. In the former case the appeal shall be brought within the time, in the manner, and in accordance with the conditions prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court, and in the latter case the enactments in the County Court (Ireland) Acts, 1851 to 1889, relating to appeals in the case of ordinary civil bill, shall apply. A proceeding in the nature of a cross appeal brought by any person who is a party to the appeal first instituted, or any second appeal from the determination of the county court in any particular case brought by any person interested therein shall only lie to that tribunal before which the appeal first instituted has been taken while the same is pending and undisposed of, save as aforesaid the determination of the county court shall be final. He said he would withdraw this Amendment in favour of the one moved by Lord Denman. But perhaps the noble Lord would explain the meaning of the words "Judge of the High Court." Would that be a rehearing before the Judge in Dublin who would hear witnesses viva voce, or an appeal on the notes of the County Court Judge.

LORD DENMAN

said the words "Judge of the high Court" had been put in to meet the special case of Dublin and for no other purpose. As to whether evidence would be heard by the Judge, he understood that was the case.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said the noble Lord who had just sat down was quite correct. The Judge of Assize had an absolute rehearing and witnesses were called up. "Judge of the High Court" was put in to meet the special case of Dublin, where appeals from the Recorder were heard from time to time at the Four Courts. The Judge in Dublin could only hear the Dublin appeals from the recorder.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF DROGHEDA

moved to insert a new sub-section in Clause 11 (proceedings in respect of claims).

Amendment moved—

"In page 6, line 13, after the word 'upon' to insert the following new sub-section. (2) Section 29 (as far as unrepealed) and sections 30, 31, and 32 of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883, shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to proceedings in respect of claims under this Act".—(The Earl of Drogheda.)

LORD DENMAN

said he was obliged to the noble Earl for having submitted to him privately his reasons for moving the Amendment. He understood that the noble Earl desired particularly to raise the case of limited owners and also the case of trustees. He was advised that the case of limited owners was covered by Section 27 of the Act of 1870, and, with regard to the case of trustees, he had in his hand a new clause which was copied out of the English Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 with only one or two differences to make it applicable to Ireland. He hoped this would meet the particular points the noble Earl desired to raise in moving this Amendment.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said he understood the noble Lord was proceeding in this matter on the advice of the Attorney-General for Ireland, and if his right hon. friend was satisfied with the clause the noble Lord had in his hand he suggested that it would be convenient if it were inserted now. They would take it on trust, and consider before the Third Reading whether or not it required modification.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved—

"In page 6, after Clause 11, to insert a new clause".—(Lord Denman.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Clause fills a whole page. I will read it if the Committee wish.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

No, no.

On Question, new clause agreed to.

LORD DENMAN

moved to amend Clause 12 (Holdings to which the Act applies) by substituting for "towns" the words "urban districts, towns, or villages." This would make the Act apply to houses, shops, and other buildings situated in urban districts, towns, or villages.

Amendment moved—

"In page 6, line 16, to leave out the word 'towns' and to insert the words 'urban districts, towns, or villages."—(Lord Denman.)

THE EARL OF PEMBROKE,

while acknowledging that the Government had tried to meet a point he made the other day, would much rather the Amendment should stop at urban districts and towns. It would be fairer to landowners to leave out villages altogether. Since he had moved his own Amendment he had received many communications from Ireland showing that everybody was surprised that this Town Tenants Bill should be made to apply to villages. He hoped the Government would consent to strike out the word "villages."

THE EARL OF CREWE

If anybody in this House is satiated with the difference between urban and rural I am that person. It certainly is a difficult matter in these cases to draw a very distinct line, but I am afraid we are not prepared to part with the word "villages." Cases of hard ship may arise under the existing state of things from the fact that a man has not got a choice of sites owing to the whole town or village belonging to one landlord. Those cases are clearly the ones which could in most cases be met by the word "village." The sort of hardship which would arise under the present condition of things would be accentuated by leaving out the word "village." I do not know of any definition of "village," and I am afraid we must trust to the Courts of law to find one in time.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

said that under this Bill the definition of a town would have to be left to the Courts to decide, and now they would have to decide the further question "when is a village not a village?"

*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE

said that in the circumstances he would withdraw his opposition to the insertion of the word "villages."

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ASHBOURNE

asked permission to move an Amendment which was not on the Paper. In the definition clause (Clause 13) it was provided that— 'Prescribed' means prescribed by rules of the County Court. He moved to add the words "made after notice sent to or consultation with the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland." These words were inserted last year in the Labourers Act, and he thought it would be wise to include them here.

Amendment moved—

"In page 6, line 33, after the word 'Court' to insert the words 'made after notice sent to or consultation with the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland."—(Lord Ashbourne.)

LORD DENMAN

said it was difficult off-hand to express any opinion on the Amendment, but as it had the great authority of the noble and learned Lord he thought they ought to accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DUNBOYNE,

on behalf of Lord Oranmore and Browne, proposed that the Act should come into operation on 1st July, 1907, instead of January 1st next. There would not be sufficient notice to those concerned if the Act had to be put in working in a fortnight.

Amendment moved—

"In page 7, line 6, to leave out the word 'January' and to insert the word 'July."—(Lord Dunboyne.)

LORD DENMAN

regretted to be obliged to resist this Amendment to postpone the operation of the measure. When the Bill was introduced it was to be put in operation immediately on its passing, and the insertion of 1st January, 1907, had been a concession made, to the Ulster Members. Postponing the operation of the Act for six months would mean that luring all that time no improvements whatever would be made in Ireland, It would be against human nature to expect a tenant to do repairs at his own cost when by waiting until the Act came into force he could make the landlord pay. The Government must insist upon the late of 1st January remaining in the Bill. He must remind noble Lords that they had already substantially altered the Bill. They had knocked out the provision making the Act retrospective, they had whittled down its operation by limiting its scope in rural districts to villages, and in various other ways, and he must warn them that any further alteration might result in the Bill being dropped altogether. He did not think it would drive noble Lords opposite to despair if the Bill was dropped, but he hoped that as the Bill was asked for by the majority of the Irish people their Lordships would not, persist in an Amendment which might result in the Bill being dropped altogether.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said the noble Lord had used language of a minatory character which was quite uncalled for by the course of the debate. He thought nothing could have been more reasonable than the manner in which noble Lords on his side of the House had conducted the discussions on this measure.

As to the question of the date he did not see how it was physically possible for the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to summon together his council of County Court Judges in the Christmas holidays in order to pass the rules necessary under the Bill. As a matter of administration it was nearly impossible to get the rules passed, printed, and gazetted before 1st January. There was no desire unduly to press the Government on the matter, and perhaps the point would be considered before the next stage.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I need hardly say that we have no complaint to make of the way noble Lords opposite have conducted the discussions on this Bill; but noble Lords have made one or two very substantial changes in the Bill, particularly the one which has destroyed its retrospective character. As regards this particular point it is exceedingly difficult for us to give way. A measure of this character as a rule comes into operation on its passing, and for this very obvious reason—if it did not come into operation quickly certain unscrupulous persons could make arrangements to defeat its provisions. As this Bill was originally introduced it was provided that it should come into operation on its passing, and it was only during the course of this autumn session, in deference to desires expressed by the Opposition in the House of Commons, that the date was fixed for the 1st of January. Therefore it is not like the case of the Education Bill, where the original date was put of to July in consequence of the Bill going on into the autumn. January was inserted in this Bill to meet the wishes of the Opposition during the course of this autumn session, to the close of which I am glad to hope we are now drawing. In these circumstances, and on the ground that we do not think it right to leave this matter open, we must adhere to the date in the Bill.

LORD DUNBOYNE

said time must elapse before the rules and forms could be prepared and consequently nothing would be lost if the date was postponed.

THE EARL OF MAYO

said they knew perfectly well that the Bill could not come into operation on the 1st of January, even if the Government spoilt the Christmas holidays of the Lord Chancellor and the County Court Judges. But he did not think the point one worth dividing upon.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

appealed to the Lord President to expedite as much as possible the preparation of the necessary forms.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 243.)