stated that he proposed to withdraw from the clause the sub-section giving the Commissioners power to make rules for regulating civil bill processes on ejectments and for recovery of rent. He would then move the introduction at another place of a clause enabling the Lord Chancellor and the five County Court Judges to make the rules required.

said, he did not consider the proposal satisfactory, and that the clause as it stood was sufficiently clear and distinct. An Amendment was put down a few days ago by the hon. Member for the County of Wexford (Mr. Healy) to remove the sub-section, and the proposal was met by the Attorney General for Ireland proposing a kind of compromise. It was not proposed to strike out the whole thing, and he admitted that that left the matter in a very illogical position; but what was the substitute now proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman? He proposed that the Lord Chancellor and five County Court Judges should make rules in reference to this matter. That was not satisfactory. Why should it not be enacted that every County Court Judge should have the same power as to serving process the moment the Bill passed as the Superior Court had? That would be clear and intelligible and immediate; but the plan suggested would be contingent, uncertain, and remote. There was nothing whatever to compel the County Court Judges to make these rules. There was nothing to indicate when they were to meet, and their duties might prevent their meeting for many months. That created an element of uncertainty; but the right hon. Gentleman balanced all that by the absolute certainty of insuring that the moment the Bill passed, whether the rules were made or not by the County Court Judges, the landlord who appealed to the Superior Court as to the serving of processes should be compelled to undergo the chances of being denied all his costs. He did not think that was fair or reasonable, and until there was something more satisfactory he should prefer the easy and intelligible simplicity of the existing drafting of the Bill.

explained that there was no more obligation imposed by the clause on the Commission to make rules than on the Judges. It simply provided that the Commission might make rules, and that the Chairman of the County Courts might. The only doubt entertained hitherto was a doubt as to whether it covered the 79th section. He thought those doubts were hardly justified; but the Government proposed to remove them by a declaratory clause, and that was the only object of the Amendment he had now proposed. He recommended the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment at present before the Committee, and the Government would strike out the clause; but they must in one way or other get rid of that which really ought to have no place in the clause at all.

wanted to know whether, if this Amendment were withdrawn, it would be competent for the Attorney General for Ireland to move the Amendment he proposed, because the Committee had now arrived at the word "of" in the 16th line, and he submitted it was not competent for the Attorney General for Ireland to go back to line 15.

wished to raise the same point, and desired the Committee to remember the fact that they had passed all the words down to the word "or" in line 16.

The only Amendment which has been proposed hitherto was to insert the word "judicial." Unless that is withdrawn there can be no proposal to omit the words under consideration; but if it is withdrawn the Committee can, no doubt, go back to the last Amendment.

said, that was not the point he wished to raise. The Chairman had called the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford in line 16, and the Attorney General for Ireland had intimated that if that were withdrawn or decided upon he would ask the Committee to go back to line 15 and omit the words from the word "the" to the word "rent." He (Lord Randolph Churchill) submitted that was wholly and completely out of Order.

As far as I recollect, the original Amendment was to leave out lines 15 and 16; that was withdrawn, and afterwards an Amendment was moved to introduce the word "judicial" before the word "rent." If that is pressed to a division it will be impossible to strike out those lines; but if the Amendment is withdrawn it will be possible.

Then I may as well say I shall not allow the Amendment to be withdrawn.

Of course, if my noble Friend objects to the withdrawal of the Amendment the question cannot be put in the form suggested by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland; but on the merits of the point I wish to say that while I do not like to interfere with questions of a technical character, it is of the very greatest importance for the working of this Bill that there should, concurrently with the new system, when it comes into operation, be a means and a certainty that those means should be used for the making of proper arrangements for the serving of processes, because we cannot help feeling that a great part of all the troubles and outrages of which so many complaints have been made, and which have so deeply struck the public mind, have arisen from attacks made on process-servers. We shall all agree that if we are to have this legislation, which is sure to lead to increased litigation, we should have, at all events, some advantages, and especially this advantage, which should at once be secured, of the introduction of a better system of serving processes. It seems to me that this is a consideration which must have been present to the mind of the Government and to the mind of the draftsman when this clause was drawn, because, whereas in every other part relating to the Commission it is said that they are to take this or that step or proceeding "under this Act," with regard to the serving of civil bill processes, they are not confined by any such limitation, and the power is given to them generally. It is not difficult to see that in reference to the general working of the system it would be desirable and not unnatural that this power should be given to the Land Commission, and that they should exercise it. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that that power can be more conveniently and quickly exercised if you intrust it to the Laud Commission than if you allow it to stand over and be dealt with as the Attorney General for Ireland suggests—in a clause to be put upon the Paper. It seems to me there is great reason and force in that suggestion. We know the great object of bringing this Court into operation would be frustrated to a considerable extent if opportunities are still left for collisions such as we see so much cause to lament between the people and process-servers. Even the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), who has never used violent language in regard to this point, has told the people that he felt his blood boil when he saw process-servers going about; and we do not want to have the blood made to boil by process-servers going about. If any improvement in the manner of serving can be devised, I think we should act most reasonably if we retained this sub-section as it was originally drawn by the Government and placed in the Bill; and if subsequently, when we get on with the remainder of the Bill, the Government can suggest any other method equally effective and rapid of carrying out the object in view, it would be possible to consider it and, if necessary, subsequently to amend the clause; but we should not part with these words, which are really valuable, inasmuch as they show it is the intention of the Government to preserve the spirit of the recommendation of my right hon. and learned Friend.

said, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the present system of serving processes was most disadvantageous; but he doubted whether the method now proposed to deal with the matter was the best, and whether it would not almost certainly load to disaster. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had thought the matter a perfectly clear one; but he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was bound to take the advice of the Legal Advisers of the Government, and they told him it was not perfectly clear, and that if the Bill were passed in the form in which it now stood, one of two things might happen —either that the Land Commission, in reading the words of the preamble of the clause, would not consider that a mere omission of the word "Act" would give them the power which it was urged they would have, or if they did, and they made rules and regulations for the serving of these notices by other Courts than themselves, and if, in consequence, a landlord acted under those rules and the tenant subsequently disputed his right to do so, and said—"You were not acting legally," he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was informed that an interesting law suit would probably arise, and that that law suit might, after all, be decided against the new rules and make them of no avail. He was perfectly willing to admit that there had been a mistake in the drafting, which the Government ought to have found out before; but he thought they would be to blame if, with their eyes open, they incurred that danger of almost certain litigation, which might entirely defeat the object they had in view. He thought the better plan would be to let these words now be withdrawn and to permit his right hon. and learned Friend to bring up a clause, and then would be the proper time for taking a discussion upon it.

said, he thought the little arrangement which had evidently been come to between the two Front Benches must really have been rehearsed, and certainly the Tory Party ought to be delighted with the concession they had got from the Government, especially as the skilful Member for the University of Dublin had succeeded so well in his obstructive course. Now that he had been so successful, no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to get something more out of the Government; but he (Mr. Healy) would like to remind those who sat on the Front Bench that there were other sections of the House, insignificant though they might be, who intended to make themselves heard, and who were deeply interested in this question. He wished to remind the Government of what took place on Friday night. On that occasion he (Mr. Healy) moved an Amendment striking out these two lines. The Government said, fairly enough, through the Attorney General for Ireland, that it would not be desirable that the Court should not have the power in the case of a judicial rent. He (Mr. Healy) at once accepted that suggestion, and moved an Amendment inserting the word "judicial" before rent. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) spoke against the proposal; but the Government put up man after man to defend the Amendment, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland—though without much enthusiasm, for he knew he was defending something his heart was not in—gave his argument, and the Solicitor General for England did the same. The Tory Party then, in the exercise of the function they were always happy to use when it suited them, moved that Progress be reported. When the Irish Members did that, they were accused of wasting the time of the House; but it was very different when a Member of the Tory Party proposed such a Motion. What did the Chief Secretary say? Why, that the Government must take a division. But did they take it? No; because several others got up and made it perfectly clear that they would keep the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues here all night. Then the Chief Secretary, seeing that there was a spirit of accommodation among hon. Members below the Gangway, gave up. Now, the Government, seeing that the Tory Party had made a demand, and were strong enough to impose it upon the Government, had asked the Government to recede from their position and to accept an Amendment which was a sop to Cerberus. But what would happen if the proposal were accepted? The proposal now before the House would, no doubt, pass in "another place;" but what security would they have that another place" would not throw out the clause suggested by the Attorney General for Ireland, and when the Bill came back to this House in the genial days of August, when there were only some two or three score persons present, what guarantee had they that the Government would provoke a legislative crisis by sticking to the words which they had offered as a sop to the Irish Members? There was no guarantee whatever. Let the Government stick to the arguments which they thought so strong on Friday. What had happened since? Why, the right hon. Gentleman had consulted the Prime Minister. When the Irish Members suggested that the Prime Minister's absence was inconvenient, on a former occasion, they were told that they were insulting him; that he was taking his necessary rest; but now, when right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench spoke of it, there was no insult suggested. Oh, no; that came from the Tory Party, who were, of course, infallible, and whose actions were at all times to be approved. They had in the Attorney General for Ireland a man who sympathized with the tenant; but the Prime Minister was the evil genius of this Bill, as far as the acceptance of Irish Amendments were concerned, because they found that, whenever the Tories wanted an Amendment accepted, they wanted the Prime Minister present; but whenever the Irish Members wanted to have an Amendment of theirs accepted, they wanted to have the Prime Minister absent. He put it to the Government whether, seeing that this Amendment had been accepted, not by any single Member of the Government, but by three of them, all in a bunch, on Friday, they would not now stick to the words that they themselves proposed?

said, it seemed to him that the course which the Government proposed was entirely logical. The proper course was, as the words now in the Bill were not within the scope of the clause, that they should be left out; but if the Amendment was not to be withdrawn, the best course for the Government to take was the course they proposed the other evening, and when a new clause was proposed these words could be struck out.

said, that, as the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) would not allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would be obliged to go to a division upon it. He regretted very much that the Government should, by the course they had taken to-day, have mixed up two questions. He agreed it was desirable that there should be power to frame special rules for the service of processes and resuming possession of holdings in the case of tenants who came into Court and applied to the Court to fix a judicial rent. But the other proposal which came from the Front Opposition Bench—namely, that there should be an amendment of the County Officers and Courts Act of 1877, would necessarily introduce a great variety of controversial matter into this portion of the Bill which was entirely beyond its scope. It would be better if the Committee would agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford. The Committee should bear in mind that it was evidently the intention of the draftsman that this power should only have reference to judicial tenures, and that the extension to the Act of 1877 was not in the mind of the Government, or of the draftsman, when the Bill was being framed. They should also bear in mind that ejectment for non-payment of rent for yearly tenants did not exist in England at all; and if the Government accepted the invitation of the Front Opposition Bench, they would give a facility which did not exist in England at all.

said, he should prefer the omission of the sub-section on the understanding that they brought up a clause in accordance with the suggestions of the Attorney General for Ireland; but as they were not able to do that by the Forms of the House, unless the Amendment were withdrawn, they should vote for the insertion of the word "judicial," because they thought it was quite clear that the Government were open to the objection of not having found out the defect of drafting before, and that this clause should not contain any enactment as to the power of the Land Commission, other than those intended; they should, therefore, vote for the insertion of the word on the understanding that they would hereafter move to settle the matter in the way suggested by the Attorney General for Ireland, by proposing, at a future stage, the insertion of a sub-section.

moved to insert, in line 25, after, the word "Act," the words, "or any part of any Act incorporated herewith." The words, he said, occurred earlier in the clause, and ought obviously to be repeated here, in order to make the clause complete.

said, he had no objection to the insertion of the words for the reasons stated by the hon. and learned Member.

, in moving, in page 24, line 36, after "otherwise," to insert—

"No Commissioner or Sub-Commissioner appointed under this Act shall, during his continuance in office, be capable of being elected or sitting as a Member of the House of Commons,"

said, the words of his Amendment were taken from the Irish Church Act of 1869; and he hoped that, in moving them, he should have equal success with the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Wanton), who seemed always to be successful in getting his Amendments accepted by the Government.

, said, he admitted the principle of the noble Lord's Amendment to be sound, and would himself incorporate it in a later clause of the Bill, as he proposed to withdraw the present one.

said, the Amendment spoke of sub-Commissioners; it ought to be Assistant Commissioners.

wished to know, as a matter of Order, whether he was to understand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether it was intended by the Government to propose to render it impossible for a Commissioner appointed under the Bill to sit as a Member of Parliament?

said, the question put was not relevant to the Question before the Committee, which was, not as to the capacity of Commissioners to sit in Parliament, but whether this particular clause be ordered to stand part of the Bill.

wished to ask whether, if this principle was to apply to every official, it would not be better for the Government to make some statement as to how far the principle of superannuation on abolition of office would apply? Before agreeing to strike out the clause, he thought the Committee had a right to information on this point—namely, as to the class of officers to whom superannuation allowances were to be made when the offices to which they had been appointed were abolished.

said, the Chief or Judicial Commissioner would, without doubt, be entitled to compensation or a pension in the circumstances referred to; but there would be no other person so entitled by virtue of the office which he held. The matter was, however, one worthy of consideration, and he thought that if it was left over until the Report it might probably be settled in a satisfactory manner.

hoped it would be made clear whether the salaries to be fixed were to be held to include all titles to superannuation or compensation on the abolition of the offices which were held.

said, he could not assent to the introduction of the words proposed by the hon. Member, if for no other reason than that they were rendered unnecessary by other provisions of the Bill which had been inserted in order to answer the object which the hon. Member desired to attain.

said, the matter was far wider than his right hon. and learned Friend considered it to be. It was asked that anyone who came under the operation of the law should have all the powers given to a tenant for life or to a limited owner. A man, who might be a petty shopkeeper in a neighbouring town, might be given the immense powers conferred under this Bill. The matter would not stand argument. He did not object to the courteous undertaking of his right hon. and learned Friend to consider the matter before Report; but he hoped the result of that consideration would be to leave the matter very much as it was.

, in moving, in page 25, to leave out lines 24 to 27, and insert—

"Present tenancy means a tenancy subsisting at the time of the passing of this Act. For the purposes of this Act any tenancy created within two years after the first day of January, 1882, shall also be deemed to be a present tenancy, and shall be subject to all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to such a tenancy. 'Future tenancy ' means a tenancy beginning after the first day of January, 1885,"

said, he did think it would be a very hard thing that after this Act passed there should be no such thing created as a present tenancy. Yet that was what would be. Suppose a landlord desired to confer on his tenants a present tenancy under a new letting, he actually had not the power to do so. Surely the Government did not mean to say that if a landlord evicted a tenant, and put him back for good reasons, he could not confer on that man the right to go into Court and get back his status. What was wanted was in all the cases for which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had such sympathy that it should be in the power of the landlord to confer, if necessary, upon his tenants the right to have present tenancies—that was, the restoration of status. There were men who had suffered from bad years, and whose farms were lying idle. Was the landlord to be prevented by Act of Parliament from giving back these men their status? If the Government were now willing to settle the Land Question they must do something to quiet the existing state of things in Ireland. There were hundreds of farms lying vacant; but he hoped it was the aim of the Government that in time equitable conditions would be patched up between landlord and tenant. No one could think it was desirable, under the Bill as it at present stood, that the landlord should be shut out from giving back to the tenants the status they had had hitherto. The Conservative Party would recognize the justice of that proposal equally with hon. Gentlemen opposite. Another thing he would like to say was that suppose this Bill passed on the 31st of August, a man to whom land had been let would be a present tenant; but if a man took land on the 1st of September he would not have the right or status of a present tenant. The relations of landlord and tenant were rent asunder. There were standing dangers in consequence; and it was very desirable that the landlord should have the right of conferring something like present tenancy. What advantage was it to a man who was in arrears to be told that he had six months' equity of redemption. That man would be in no better position to pay his arrears at the end of six months than at the present time. Probably he might be in New York, in the slums of Liverpool, or on the plains of Manitoba. The Government should, at least, give the men who were now wandering about homeless some chance to make conditions and terms with their landlord. Perhaps he was proposing a little longer period than the Government could accept. Perhaps they would give 12 months or a year and a-half; but, at least, let them give something like hope to those who were now being driven out without hope.

said, he was willing to receive with indulgence many suggestions; but this Amendment was out of place. Its proper place would be in the next clause. It was distinctly an enacting Amendment, and this was simply a defining clause. As to the arguments of the hon. Member, he might say that the principal point was the proposition that the landlord should have the power, if he thought fit, of conferring a present tenancy on his future tenant. By the insertion of a few words in the Bill, the object of the Amendment might be attained, and the Government were quite disposed to entertain the proposal, or to make a proposal for attaining the object.

said, he quite recognized the force of what the Prime Minister had said as to the wrong place; and if it was considered desirable that he should move the Amendment in another place, he would do so. Might he ask if it was the intention of the Government to make the proposal themselves?

said, that, on the part of the Government, he could not say that they could accept the whole of this Amendment.

said, he hoped the Government would consider, when the time came, on Clause 45, the desirability of making it a little wider than was proposed in the Amendment.

said, he proposed to move an Amendment in the interest of farmers principally in the North of Ireland, who had erected upon their holdings, either they or their predecessors, scutch mills for the purpose of scutching flax, for which the farmer in the North of Ireland was noted. This was not by any means a manufacturing process. It was in the nature of the process of a threshing machine, or as a man threshed corn before carrying it to the market. Formerly, until 15 years ago, or a little more, this scutching of flax was done by the family of the farmer on winter nights, by the use of wooden knives, and that was how it was principally done in Belgium at the present time. But gradually the power of water came into use. Farmers erected these scutch mills, first of all with two or three handles or revolving pins to scutch the flax for themselves. Then they gradually commenced to scutch for their neighbours also. He found from the Returns of last year that there were 1,182 scutch mills in Ireland, of which 1,140 were in Ulster. Most of these mills were built in Ulster on the faith of the old Ulster Custom, because it was to the interest of the farmer and to the interest of the community that flax should be grown. Before 1870 they felt secure; but since 1870, on account of their fear that landlords would stand more upon their rights than formerly, they became very uneasy. But he must say for the landlords in the North of Ireland, that when they brought the matter before him, he did not find one single instance in which that Act had been taken advantage of. Now, when this Bill was coming into law, they were still more afraid that the landlords would stand upon their rights; and on account of the scutch mills not being actually suitable to the holding itself, they feared that advantage might be taken. A deputation from Ireland called on the Chief Secretary, at which he had the honour of being present; and he did hope the Government would allow some such words as those he was about to propose to go into the Bill in order to make the position of those industrious and enterprizing farmers thoroughly secure.

said, there was a great deal worthy of consideration in what the hon. Member had mentioned. The tenant ought to have the power of selling his holding as it stood, and nobody doubted that the construction of these mills was valuable. Still, he did not think this Amendment, as it stood, could be safely introduced; but if the hon. Member would trust him to take charge of it, he would see to the insertion of suitable words in the Report.

said, the 2nd section of the Act of 1870 defined an improvement to be a work which, being executed, added to the letting value of land on which it was executed if suitable for such land. They could not go beyond these words. Either the work did add to the value of the land or it did not add to the value of the land. If it did, the tenant should be compensated; if it did not, it was very hard that it should be added to the liabilities of the landlord.

said, the apprehension that was felt was that the scutching mill, not being confined to the use of the holding, might be held not suitable for the holding.

said, this appeared to him to be a fair Amendment. He did not like the words "for the purpose of rendering the agricultural produce of the holding or neighbouring holdings suitable for market." Although this machinery might be put up for the purpose of rendering the produce suitable for market, it might not have that effect; and, of course, it would be very hard to make the landowners pay for some machine put up by the tenant which might do more harm than good. If this Amendment was to be pressed he should move an Amendment to the Amendment, after the word "market," the words "will have the effect of." That would allow the Court to give full value to the tenant for the value of the mill, and would prevent the landlord from paying more than he ought to pay.

said, he did trust the Government would accept the Amendment. It was most desirable that farmers should be stimulated and encouraged to develop small local industries. The limitations imposed by the definition in the Act of 1870 had been found to be most injurious. In some of the cases County Court Judges had been unwillingly compelled to deprive tenants of the benefits of expenditure made, on the ground that the buildings did not add to the letting value of the farm as an agricultural holding. If the landlord derived benefit from improvements made by the tenant, and these improvements were held to increase the letting value of the holding, in equity and justice, then, fair value ought to be allowed to the tenant. The argument was stronger in favour of the tenant, under the provisions of the present Bill, when such value was realized by sale and not by payment, as in the Act of 1870. It was a novel matter, and ought to encourage the Government to grant the concession asked and thus supported from the Conservative side. If the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland did not accept the whole of the Amendment, he trusted he would accept the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the other side (Colonel Barne).

said, that, on the understanding that suitable words would be introduced by the Attorney General for Ireland, he would withdraw the Amendment.

said, he did not understand that the Attorney General for Ireland undertook to introduce any words at all. He said he would consider the matter before the Report. Under the Land Act of 1870, everything was an improvement which added to the letting value of the land, and was suitable to the land. Was it reasonable to go beyond that? They were asking that that was to be regarded as an improvement which might not add to the letting value of the land, and was not necessary to the holding. They could not argue in a circle. As he understood, the Attorney General for Ireland left it open, and did not accept the Amendment. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Law): I do not accept it.] In that case, he did not understand the position, because the hon. Member for the County of Armagh (Mr. Richardson) had said he had had the undertaking of the Government that they would introduce words that would have the effect of carrying out the principle of the Amendment he had moved. He (Mr. Gibson) did not know whether such an undertaking was given or not; but what he understood the Attorney General for Ireland to promise was merely that he would consider the matter before the Report, which was a much more hazy undertaking. As the law stood under the Act of 1870, everything was an improvement that, first of all, added to the letting value of the holding; and, secondly, that was suitable to it. If the completeness of this definition were challenged, he had a right to ask whether they challenged as incomplete the thing that added to the letting value of the holding, or that which was suited to the holding? No one desired to damage the Ulster tenant, or any other tenant, and he was merely testing the words in which this object was presented. Let them take it both from the tenant's point of view and from the landlord's point of view. This was an Amendment that sought to include as improvements against the landlord any buildings or machinery that might have been erected, not necessarily for the holding itself, but which might have been put there as a speculation on the part of the tenant, who might have maintained it simply for his own profit, although it might not come within the definition of the Act of 1870, under which the landlord might be asked to pay compensation. Was this just to the landlord? Let them take the case of a future tenant. Was the landlord to be compelled to pay for things which were not suited to the holding; because, otherwise, it was not necessary to give the definition? The landlord might not succeed in getting an equally speculative tenant, or he might go into the market to look for a new tenant, and come upon a lot of men eligible to take the holding in its ordinary condition, but none of them willing to pay the extra amount in respect of the buildings and machinery erected by the speculative tenant, and that were not necessary to the holding. Another reason that ought to make the Government hesitate to accept the Amendment in its present shape was that the tenant might go into the market, and, if he met with an equally speculative tenant, might get, in addition to the purchase money, what might recoup him for his expenditure; and he thought he had a right to ask that the landlord should not be called upon to pay for what did not really come under the head of improvements. He would only add that he had not understood his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland to undertake to alter the clause in the sense of the Amendment; and it was only because of the silence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman when the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Richardson) had put a different interpretation on what had been said, that he (Mr. Gibson) had thought it right to speak.

said, no landlord in Ulster had ever contested his liability to pay for as improvements such buildings as were contemplated by the Amendment.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Martin) had stated that, in a county in the South of Ireland, there was a case in which a man had erected a very large building for the storage of wood, not for the use of his own farm, but for his neighbours, and under the operation of the Act of 1870 he claimed compensation for that building, and compensation was not awarded to him. Such a building could do no possible good to the holding on which it was erected; and if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Armagh were adopted, the result would be that they would have a complete change in the Act of 1870, and all sorts of claims would be allowed which, under the present law were, very properly, disallowed. He must say that he thought the reasons alleged for the adoption of the Amendment constituted a very poor ground for so serious a change of the law, and he trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would, on re-consideration, consent to leave the law where it stood at present, and where, on the whole, it worked well.

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Armagh would withdraw his Amendment, in order that his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland might suggest something that would meet the case.

said, before the Amendment was withdrawn, he wished to briefly comment on the statement just made. When the Bill was introduced, the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), and others, had said that they would not be able to pacificate Ireland by improvements of the Land Act of 1870, but rather by the promotion of industrial enterprize among the Irish people; Yet, when an opportunity was now presented of stimulating the creation of local industries in Ireland by giving the tenants the right to claim for valuable buildings and machinery erected on their holdings in view of their well-founded apprehension that they would otherwise be deprived of their interest in that industrial enterprize under the definition of the present Land Act, the noble Lord opposed such a concession on the part of the Attorney General for Ireland. He trusted, however, that notwithstanding the opposition they had had put forward against the Amendment, the Attorney General for Ireland would adhere to what he had said. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had approved of a decision come to by Mr. Justice Lawson—a name that ought to command the respect of the noble Lord—and if that were a wise decision as applied to Ulster, he (Mr. Martin) thought that now they were extending the Ulster Custom all over Ireland they ought to take care not to allow any words in the Definition Clause that would deprive the tenants of rights which were conferred on the Ulster tenants. The noble Lord spoke of the case of a wood store. He (Mr. Martin) would remind the noble Lord that these wood stores were used partly for the purposes of the tenants and partly for ensuring a supply of wood for their neighbours. Under the restricted Definition Clause of the Land Act of 1870, the tenant was deprived of all right to claim for such buildings, and he certainly trusted that the Attorney General for Ireland would not go back upon the assurance he had given that he would bring up on the Report of the Bill a form of words that would substantially put an end to what was rightly conceived to be a great grievance by tenant farmers.

said, he wished it to be clearly understood that it was only on account of the undertaking on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, that he had offered to withdraw his Amendment.

objected to the proposed Amendment, and contended that the words of the Land Act of 1870 were quite sufficient. If the scutching mills that had been spoken of were additions to the letting value of the land, and were suitable to the holding, they would come within the definition of the Land Act, and if they did not come within that category the landlord ought not to be compelled to pay compensation; while, in the majority of cases, the tenant would be able to sell the buildings and machinery he had put up. Under these circumstances, he thought the better course would be for the Committee to negative the Amendment.

said, the general rule laid down by the Land Act of 1870 was perfectly safe, sound, and just; but here was a peculiar and exceptional case. He entirely approved of the pledge which his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had given to bring up a provision that would meet the case.

hoped that some such provision would be added to the Bill, always provided there was an addition to the letting value of the property.

said, the question was how the value was to be determined. The improvements were all against the incoming tenant, and in that case their market price would determine their value; but he did not see how the value was to be assessed as against the landlord.

said, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he should not challenge the withdrawal of the Amendment.

said, he had put an Amendment on the Paper, but he had mentioned the matter before in speaking on the second reading of the Bill. It was maintained that this Bill was to be read as one with the Land Act of 1870; but he thought it would be seen that the last paragraph of the clause required amendment as a matter of drafting, in order that the intention of the Government might be fully carried out. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would consider the matter before the Report.

, on behalf of Mr. GIVAN, moved as an Amendment, in page 26, line 2, to leave out from the word "determined" to the word "whenever" in line 6. He said his object was to omit the provision that a tenancy should be determined whenever it was sold in consequence of a breach by the tenant of a statutory condition, or in case of a tenancy not subject to statutory conditions of an act or default on the part of a tenant which would, in a tenancy subject to such conditions, have constituted a breach thereof. It struck him as rather anomalous that a tenancy should be declared to be determined on a sale, when, in order to make his purchase of any value to the buyer, the tenancy should still exist. There was some amendment required if the words were to be retained.

said, he could not accept the Amendment, as he held it to be right and politic that a substantial breach of covenant should lead to the creation of a future tenancy. Future tenancies might arise in three ways—either from the resumption of the land by the owner, or from the exercise of his right of pre-emption, or from a breach of covenant on the part of the tenant. If there were to be future tenancies at all, it was quite as reasonable that they should result from the last cause as from either of the others, and he must decline to alter the Bill in this respect. It would, he believed, be found that the provision to which his hon. Friend objected would give the tenant a motive for the exact observance of his engagements. The Government were not, as at present advised, disposed to part with that portion of the clause.

said, the Government had intimated that it was their intention to recognize the early part of the clause, and preserve the substantial identity of the meaning. He understood that the Amendment was in manuscript, and he expected it to be carried out with the modification of the Chief Secretary's Amendment.

regretted that the Prime Minister should have expressed himself in such strong terms with regard to this Amendment. He thought that freedom of contract was the bête noire of this Bill. The whole contention in Ireland had been caused by want of security of tenure, and by the exorbitant rents exacted by the landlords; and he certainly did not want to see those evils arising again and again in connection with future tenancies, and, therefore, he objected to the multiplication of these opportunities for contention in the manner proposed by the Government. The Government admitted the necessity in Ireland of some one to interpose between the landlord and tenant for the purpose of fixing rents, and that something like security of tenure was desirable for the great body of present tenants. He asked was not that also desirable for the future tenants? He ventured to say that, within a few months after the passing of this Bill, hundreds of future tenancies would be created, which would give rise to more burning questions for English statesmen to deal with. He could not conceive why this system of freedom of contract was put forward by the Prime Minister. It appeared that if he (Mr. Healy) desired to buy a farm which was being sold for breach of statutory conditions, his tenancy would be a future tenancy. But that would not be what he wanted; he wanted a present tenancy—that was to say, something that would stand between him and future exactions on the part of the landlord.

said, he regarded the provision sought to be struck out as a serious blot on the Bill. An earlier provision of the Bill provided that the landlord should receive rent and damages due from the tenant out of the purchase money, and that rule had been found to work well in the North of Ireland in the interest both of the landlord and tenant. But what did the Government propose in this clause? It was not only that the tenant should pay rent and damages, but that he should also forfeit his tenancy at the same time. The difference between present and future tenancies appeared to him enormous. The future tenancy was a tenancy from which a man might be turned out in a week, subject only to compensation for disturbance, and, so far as this clause was concerned, the landlord might continue this practice ad infinitum. But, although he wished to see the privileges of the future tenant enlarged, he was much more concerned with the position of the present tenants; and he confessed he viewed with great apprehension the words of the Prime Minister uttered that day, as well as on a former occasion, that this clause of the Act would have a wide operation. He understood from the Prime Minister, that, after having elevated the present tenants to a higher stage by the present Bill, it was intended to strew pitfalls in their way in order to entrap them into a lower position. The clause would bear very harshly on many of the smaller tenants who would not be able to fulfil the condition of paying the rent. He regretted that the Government did not see their way to making the desired concession.

I know not how to interpret what has fallen from my hon. Friend, except by supposing that he means that we ought to extend the intervention of the Court to the transactions of private life. I imagine that is so because the intervention of the Court is somewhat different in the case of the present and future tenants under this Bill, and it is that intervention of the Court which my hon. Friend, applying rather too readily his Indian experience, regards as such a permanent security for the dignity and well-being of Ireland, not only now, but for all time. From the way in which my hon. Friend spoke of the advantage of everyone being able to apply to the Court, one would suppose that a new view of the garden of Eden was before us, by simply saying that every transaction of life shall be subject for ever to the intervention of a Court, so that if a man buys a coat from a tailor the Court shall intervene to fix the price. This the hon. Member describes as progress and advancement. But if once we venture to narrow this intervention of the Court so as to provide individuals with the means of coming together to settle matters that can be very well settled without the intervention of the Court, my hon. Friend pronounces on the consequence in the most dorolous terms. Our view is that the Court is a remedy for serious and intolerable evils. It is upon that ground alone that we bring it in; and, consequently, it is no unnatural deduction to say we will not ask Parliament to affirm in the year 1881 that this intervention of the Court is to be stereotyped perpetually and universally throughout Ireland. I have some hope that my hon. Friend has not exactly measured what the condition of future tenants will be, because the future tenant, notwithstanding the opinion of my hon. Friend, is by no means relegated to the provisions of the Act of 1870, even with the alteration which has been made in the scale of compensation for disturbance. That is not the case at all. The future tenant will have exactly the same right of disposing of his tenant right, and in the same manner as the present tenant, and, in my opinion, will be on a better footing than the present tenant in one important respect, inasmuch as the present tenant, if he goes to Court, is liable to have a judicial price put upon his rights which will stand for the whole of his statutory term, whereas the man who does not go to the Court will obtain the market price. The latter has, therefore, a more free enjoyment of his tenant right, and along with that he has the protection given to him by this Bill against the augmentation of his rent. That is the position of the future tenant; and, undoubtedly, while in some respects his position is in my opinion improved, unquestionably it is not deteriorated in any one thing except that of the delightful privilege of going to law, which would seem to be my hon. Friend's compensation for all the ills of life. This intervention of authority is, I think, proposed by my hon. Friend more in accordance with Indian than English views. It is hard to say whether the loss of that privilege is now a greater boon to the tenant than the landlord; but 20 or 40 years hence the privilege would, I am perfectly sure, be a greater loss to the tenant than the landlord. It must be remembered that this modification of the conditions of tenancy will be by an enactment under which not only the tenant can take the landlord into Court but under which the landlord can take the tenant into Court. That is no slight consideration. As a general rule, in such cases, one of the parties is a rich man and the other a poor man, and, undoubtedly, the man who stands at the door of a Court of Justice with a long purse has an advantage over the man with a short purse. I say it is a hasty assumption that it will be an unmixed loss to the tenant that he is not able to go to law. I hope I have removed some of the apprehensions with regard to the sufferings of these future tenants, which I am afraid have disturbed the slumbers of my hon. Friend for some time past. At any rate, I have desired to do so. This is a matter on which the Government have arrived at their present conclusion, after much consideration, and without being idolatrous believers in freedom of contract. We have thought that it would be a very serious matter indeed to ask Parliament to extinguish it for ever in consequence of circumstances which are wholly abnormal and belong to the present very peculiar position in Ireland, and with regard to which we are sanguine enough to believe that they will not be permanently established from generation to generation.

admitted readily that his great fear was with re- gard to the degradation, so to speak, of present and future tenants. He had also no hesitation in saying that his own view was that freedom of contract might best be attained in Ireland by making future tenancies as free as possible, subject only to compensation for improvements, and, unless a very long lease was granted, then compensation for disturbance. His wish was that present tenants should not be degraded, and up to the present time he had been under the impression that it was intended by this Bill to give that which existed in one part of Ireland to the other parts—to allow the tenants in those parts of the country to regulate their condition by fixity of tenure, with fair rents and free sale of their tenant right. His impression was that the old tenants of Ireland were to be given the "three F's," and that a property in the soil was to be created for them. His idea was certainly not that their property was to be the subject of continual litigation between themselves and their landlords—for he was no more enamoured than was the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister of litigation—but that they should follow the example of the tenants of the other countries of Europe, and progress without that expense. On the whole, he felt much disappointed at the words which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he had always failed to understand the object of the Government in making a distinction between present and future tenancies, because, according to their contention, they wished to get rid of what they called a crying evil—namely, the possibility of landlords charging exhorbitant rents. The Prime Minister said that the future tenant was in a very grand position. But would anyone affirm that he would get a fair price for his tenancy if the landlord was known to be extortionate? It was the object of the Amendment to prevent that loss to the tenant, and the result of the clause as it stood would undoubtedly be that the incoming tenant would say—"I cannot give a high price for the holding, seeing that the rent is very much higher than the judicial rent would probably be." He and his Colleagues did not suppose that there would be any great number of changes of tenancy. They wished the alterations contemplated by the Bill to take place, and to see a succession of more or less prosperous tenants; but they certainly did not desire that the land should be changing hands every day and hour. For his own part, he did not value as highly as some persons appeared to do the power of free sale, because he regarded it as a minor part of the question. But suppose a man, who perhaps did not hold on statutory conditions, by some accident committed an act that would amount to a breach of statutory conditions in the case of a tenancy so held, he would be in this position, that he must sell the holding, and that subject to any increase of rent the landlord might choose to demand. That seemed to him to be too heavy a penalty to impose upon a tenant for the breach of a statutory condition. Take the statutory condition relating to the dilapidation of farm buildings. The damage might amount, perhaps, to £100 or £200; but the loss to the tenant under this provision would be many hundreds of pounds more than the damage resulting from dilapidation of the premises. Then in the case of the tenant becoming bankrupt, if the tenant would not join in the sale of the tenancy for the benefit of the creditors, one of the creditors would probably make him bankrupt, and the land would be sold, no doubt by collusion with the landlord, in such a way that the remaining creditors would get almost nothing. A very great injustice would therefore be done to the creditors, and a substantial benefit to the landlord by enabling him to extort from the incoming tenant an amount of rent above that which would probably be fixed by the Court. In this respect, then, the clause would do a great deal of harm. It would also be mischievous in the case of future tenants, because it was a matter of certainty that the number of future tenants would constantly increase, while that of the present tenants would be decreasing. The result of all this would be continuous agitation for a new Land Act—an agitation as strong as there had been during the last 10 years.

said, as the Prime Minister had explained the matter, there was a considerable difference between the position of present and future tenants, and, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Attorney General for Ireland being present, he desired to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland for some further information on this point. There appeared to exist a very considerable misconception with regard to future tenancies, and he had quite recently read two pamphlets on the subject which took diametrically opposite views of the position of the future tenant. One writer was of opinion that as soon as he obtained the statutory term of 15 years by accepting a rise of rent, he became for the future in exactly the same position as the present tenant; that he could at the end of 15 years apply to the Court for a revision, and, if necessary, a reduction, of his rent. The other writer was of opinion that at the end of 15 years he must accept another increase of rent in order to get another 15 years. If the future tenant was in that position, he could not regard him as dwelling in that paradise described by the Prime Minister; on the contrary, he thought he was in a lamentable position. He would be in a worse position than the leaseholder of the present time, because at the end of every 15 years, in order to hold his farm, he would have to accept an increase of rent. There were many hon. Members sitting around him who had all along thought that, according to the language of the Bill, after having accepted a rise in rent, the future tenant would have all the advantages which were connected with the statutory term; and, therefore, as the Attorney General for Ireland was now in his place, he desired very much that he would state the exact difference, if any, between the position of a future tenant who obtained statutory tenure by accepting an increase of rent, and the position of a present tenant who obtained it by an appeal to the Court.

was understood to say that of the two descriptions given of the position of the future tenant, the latter was the correct one.

said, he thought the matter would have been better discussed on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford to the last clause, the latter portion of which provided that future tenancies should begin on the 1st day of June, 1885. He should have been prepared to support a proposal fixing a still later date for their commencement; indeed, it seemed to him that it would have been better to de- fine a future tenancy as one commencing 15 years after the passing of the Act. During that time landlord and tenant would have found a modus vivendi; we should have peace and quiet in Ireland; and the tenant having obtained a sense of security, future tenants might at the end of that time have been left to make their own contracts with their landlords.

suggested that they should get rid of the present Amendment. He would afterwards move an Amendment at the end of the 46th section.

said, he understood it to be absolutely clear, from the previous statement of the Prime Minister, that although the words under discussion were to be struck out, the Government were pledged to introduce words exactly a the same sense, but in an altered form.

signified assent.

remarked, that when the Attorney General for Ireland introduced an Amendment, no amount of argument would induce him to agree to any alteration of it.

said, he had an Amendment to propose which was not on the Paper. He had, at a former part of the discussion, raised the question as to whether it would not be desirable to give the landlord power to re-create a present tenancy by writing under his hand. It was said that the power already existed to do this; but he had not had time to go thoroughly into that matter, and had prepared an Amendment to give the necessary power. He did not say that the reading was the best that could be arranged for the purpose.

said, the hon. Member for Wexford had fairly stated that he did not expect the Government to adopt the exact wording of his Amendment. Adopting its principle, however, he would bring up a clause on Report, with the object of enabling the landlord to do in a simple way what he might already do by a cumbrous and round about process.

We understand that the principle is that the landlord may voluntarily re-instate a tenant.

Yes.

said, in asking leave to withdraw his Amendment, he must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he had given no explanation with regard to present and future tenancies. Irish Members were in an awkward position from not having received some statement from the Government with regard to the suggestion contained in his Amendment to the last clause—namely, that present tenancies should be created until within two years after the passing of this Act.

said, the Amendment he was about to move was a corollary to Clause 6. Under the old law, if a man made improvements, he could not obtain compensation except on notice to quit. As he held it to be undesirable that there should be any creation of future tenancies upon what he called "technicalities," he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

said, he did not think the Government could adopt this Amendment. He pointed out that they had provided by the 1st sub-section that the surrender to the landlord of a tendancy for the purpose of the acceptance or admission of a tenant, or otherwise, by way of transfer, should not be deemed to be a determination of the tenancy. That operated as a surrender to the landlord, and, of course, it was understood that the provision, which merely acted as a piece of machinery, created no legal title. But the Amendment of the hon. Member went further than that provision. He could not see the object of the Amendment clearly. Suppose a man held five acres, and surrendered them to get 50, it would be hard to say that that should not be a future tenancy. Taking either less or a great deal more must, of necessity, make a new tenancy. Again, mere change of rent did not operate to change the tenancy, as was obvious, when it was proposed to fix a judicial rent. The hon. Member's Amendment referred to determination by surrender "or otherwise," and it was, therefore, objectionable on that ground, because it could not be expected that the Government should reverse the Common Law. They would, however, provide, on Report, for technical breaches of statutory conditions.

said, upon that undertaking on the part of the Government, he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. It was only natural that Irish Members should be suspicious of the pitfalls contained in the clause; and he asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give the matter his serious consideration between that time and Report.

remarked, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had put the case of a person who gave up five acres of land in order to get 50 acres. But he wished to take, also, the converse of that position, and suppose the case of a tenant who wanted to get a smaller piece of land than he had in possession. Now, in both these cases the dimensions of the tenant's holdings would be more or less changed; and he asked the Attorney General for Ireland whether or not in both cases the tenancy would be determined?

said, he proposed to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Cavan at a later stage.

said, he proposed to move to leave out sub-section 2, which restrained a landlord from exercising his rights for 15 years after he had purchased the tenant's interest in his holding. The sub-section in question ran as follows:—

"Where a present tenancy in a holding is purchased by the landlord from the tenant in exercise of his right of pre-emption under this Act, and not on the application or by the wish of the tenant, or as a bidder in the open market, then if the landlord within fifteen years from the passing of this Act re-lets the same holding to another tenant, the same shall be subject, from and after the time when it has been so re-let, to all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to present tenancies."

That was a restriction upon freedom of contract to a degree which he could have hardly expected from the framers of this Bill. The present occupier had received the full value of his interest in the holding, as determined by the Land Commissioners; he had exercised his right of pre-emption from a desire of benefiting his property; he had a strong opinion that it was not, on the whole, desirable that the tenancy should be charged with the interest on the purchase; he desired to let the land again, and did not wish to get a large premium from the tenant, because he preferred that the tenant's money should rather be invested in the land itself by way of improvements. In short, he had no wish to embarrass the tenant. But under this sub-section he would be absolutely prohibited from taking the course which an English landlord would take of enabling the tenant to apply all his capital to develop the resources of the land. This appeared to him so great a restriction on freedom of contract that he hoped the Government would agree to strike out the sub-section, the omission of which he begged to move.

said, he was not enamoured of the sub- section. As he understood it, it drew a distinction between the first term of 15 years and the subsequent term; in fact, it raised a tenant, who otherwise would be a future tenant during the first 15 years, into the position of a present tenant. The Attorney General for Ireland would, perhaps, inform him whether he understood the sub-section correctly, when he believed that whereas a man, after the exercise of pre-emption by the landlord, would otherwise be a future tenant, and would not be able to go to the Court to get the rent fixed and the term determined during the first 15 years, he would, under this sub-section, be able to do so? The point was germane to the section. He had previously raised it; but he was not prepared to raise the question over again or press it to a division. It did, however, seem to him that all these small distinctions and differences did unnecessarily encumber and complicate the Bill, and he believed it would be a great improvement, and the tenant would not suffer in the least, if they were omitted. He respectfully pressed on the Government to consider whether there was any substantial advantage to the tenant in keeping up these distinctions, or, at least, to consider whether the small advantage accruing to the tenant was not outweighed by the amount of matter by which the Bill was encumbered.

I must own we are not at all prepared to agree to the removal of this sub-section. My noble Friend says it would be well to do away with these minute distinctions; but then he should recollect that earlier in the evening there was application made of that principle by others in a very different sense, and that was that it would be well to abolish the differences between present and future tenancies. It was argued that if we wanted to simplify the Bill we must do this. But we decline to simplify the Bill at the cost of such a change as that. We must consider whether this proposition in subsection 3 is a proposition fit to be maintained or not. I think the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. Smith) attach to the omission of this sub-section a greater consequence than really belongs to it. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if upon the omission of this sub-section it would be in the power of the landlord to get rid entirely of the provision which enables the tenant to whom the land is re-let to sell his tenant right. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the landlord's desire to relieve the land from the burden of this price of the tenant right, paid on interest; he thought it would empower the landlord, if this sub-section were omitted, after the exercise of pre-emption, to get rid of the tenant right when he let a holding again. Of course he might, if he thought fit, put such a rent on it as would absorb it. That is another thing. But after all, you must remember you cannot absorb so much of the tenant right in rent as you suppose. The Irish tenant is willing to pay for the tenant right what he is not willing to pay for in the form of rent. Now, Sir, suppose we were to omit this sub-section, what might happen? I reckon this power of pre-emption exercised by the landlord to be a very large power indeed left in his hands by the Bill, and a particular landlord might have a great fancy for the exercise of this pre-emption, and might take advantage of the position of the tenants to change extensively the tenure, and to re-introduce the tenants as future tenants. We do not think it would be wise, having regard to the general tranquillity of Ireland, that there should be a large introduction of these future tenancies until such time has elapsed as the Act generally shall have had a fair trial. That is really the motive which led us, when we came to consider the Pre-emption Clause, to determine that it was necessary we should guard the clause so as to prevent its being used, even by particular persons—perhaps eccentric parties when compared with the general mass of landlords—for the purpose of a rapid and early introduction of a considerable number of future tenancies. That would not give the Act fair play. We do not think it would be to the interest of the general settlement of the Irish Land Question, which we take to be a matter equally for the advantage of landlord and tenant, that this sub-section should be omitted. These are the main grounds on which we support the sub-section, and on which we must adhere to it.

said, he was anxious to hear what the Government had to say in defence of this sub-section. He could not help thinking that on the face of it it bore a construction extremely illogical. They gave the landlord, in the very first clause of the Bill, the right to pre-emption. That was not a right to be exercised on his mere motion; it could only come into existence when the tenant had signified to the landlord his desire to sell his holding. Upon that the landlord came in and sought to exercise his right of pre-emption. First of all, they gave him the opportunity of coming to a friendly agreement with his tenant, and if this agreement could not be arrived at, the parties go to Court. He wanted to know, therefore, in what respect, upon the Government's own hypothesis, was the outgoing tenant, anxious to sell his holding, injured? If they had any faith in their Court—and he had faith in it—for the future adjustment of these difficulties, why could they not be content with its decision? Recollect the whole, or the greater part of this Bill, so far as it related to present tenancies, turned upon the existence of certain existing relations between two particular persons or their representatives. But there were no existing relations between the landlord and future tenants. Why, therefore, should they attach something of a penal character upon the action of the landlord? It was argued that, in consequence of his having taken an unfair advantage of the outgoing tenant, the landlord was to be precluded for 15 years from making a contract with another tenant. Now, that was illogical. There were three possible ways in which a landlord might acquire the exercise of the right of pre-emption. He might do so upon the application of the tenant, or in the open market, or by the settlement of the Court. Why was the third course to be considered so much less safe, less secure, less just to the tenant, that it was to involve the forfeiture of the 15 years' freedom to begin a new contract? As a mere matter of policy, there might be a great deal in favour of the Prime Minister's statement; he would not say that policy might not be sufficiently strong to outweigh other considerations. As a mere matter of justice between man and man, he could not see how the subsection could be defended.

asked hon. Members to recollect that, in the present state of Ireland, whatever value might be set upon the power of going to Court, a tenant right which conveyed the power of going to Court and the tenant right which did not convey that power would fetch very different prices indeed. He apprehended there was little doubt about that, and that was a matter which the Court would have to take into consideration in fixing the tenant right. As far as justice was concerned, it was not a question of the defence of the future tenant, who would pay a price proportionate to the value, but it was for the defence of the present tenant, with whom the landlord had relations, that this subsection was inserted.

said, he understood that a present tenant had now the right to go to Court in order to have his rent fixed before he sold his interest in the holding. The present tenant sold his interest in the holding by agreement with the landlord, or at a rate ascertained by the Land Commission to be a fair price for the holding. For what reason were they to prevent the landlord doing what he felt to be, on the whole, in the interest of his holding and in the interest of the future tenant, in making a contract with the future tenant? Why were they to penalize the action of the landlord? Why were they to prevent him coming to an arrangement with his tenant under the 1st section of this Act? If they told the landlord that he was to be held under the conditions of this sub-section in coming to an arrangement with a tenant, they put him under great difficulty in exercising his power of pre-emption. They would almost make it impossible for him to exercise his power of pre-emption, because a tenant coming in would know perfectly well that he had his landlord completely at his mercy. Why should they not leave the landlord's hands perfectly free? Having done everything so far as the present tenant was concerned, why should they not leave the landlord to make the best terms he could with the future tenant?

said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that this subsection would interfere with the power of the landlord. The right hon. Gentleman would observe the clause was confined to the exercise of seignorial right of pre-emption, and did not apply to where the landlord bought on the application or with the consent of the tenant. If the landlord lay by until the tenant signified his intention to sell, and then stepped in and said he would buy, that would be a different thing. The object of the clause was to put a restraint on the landlord for a certain very obvious purpose. If the landlord wanted the land for himself, or for his demesne, or for some other like purpose, the clause would not apply; but if he bought the tenant right for the purpose of defeating one of the provisions of this Act, if he exercised his right of pre-emption for the purpose of turning present tenancies into future tenancies, if he used his power for the benefit of his own estate, and to deprive his tenants of the protection of this Bill, and to produce in a few years a recurrence of the misery which now prevailed in Ireland, the clause would apply. Very few landlords would do that, but there were some landlords who would take a sort of pleasure in defeating the purposes of the Act in this matter. The Government did not desire that the provisions of the Act, which were meant to secure a certain amount of quiet and contentment to the Irish tenant, should be defeated by the landlord exercising his power of pre-emption in order to turn present tenants into future tenants. There was no interference with the power of the landlord to buy if the tenant was willing to sell in the ordinary way; the clause applied only when the landlord intervened on notice of sale being given, and said that nobody else should buy.

said, inasmuch as one case had been put, he might be allowed to put another. Suppose a landlord having exercised the right of pre-emption kept the farm in his own hands for five or six years, and then sold it, was the purchaser to be bound by this limitation—could he not create future tenancies?

said, the more he listened to the explanations given by the Government the more puzzled he was to know what the point was the Government insisted on. Their real object seemed to be to debar the landlord, as far as possible, from exercising the right of pre-emption, and not to do justice as between landlord and tenant; their purpose seemed to be to prevent the landlord dealing with his land hereafter upon a system over which Government had no control. He quite understood that the Government, in making the proposals contained in this Bill, were, to a very considerable ex- tent, departing from what they recognized as the sound and normal conditions of free contract between landlord and tenant. They did so in the belief—and there were certain grounds for that belief—that it was necessary to make provisions for the protection of tenants as against their landlords. The Government began the Bill by saying that they gave to the tenant the right of freely selling his interest in his holding, and that they gave to the landlord the right of pre-emption. But the landlord could only exercise that right if, in the first instance, the tenant had chosen to take the step of saying he would sell, and, of course, the promoters of the Bill had taken steps to guard the interests of the tenant so that he would have no injustice done by the landlord exercising the right of pre-emption. The landlord would pay that which the Court considered fair, and would pay it upon the tenant's own motion. The tenant, therefore, could have no further interest in the holding. He had had no injustice done him, and the holding was in the hands of the landlord, who, if he chose to, had a perfect right to hold and cultivate it. The Attorney General for Ireland had said they meant to refuse the right of pre-emption to the landlord if he intended to use it for the purpose of benefiting his own estate. Well, but how might he benefit it? He might benefit it by converting large holdings into small holdings; he might benefit it by taking a holding and joining it to another; he might benefit it by re-adjusting his land; and each of these courses would be to the interest of the tenants on his estate, and of the tenantry in that part of the country. Then why was he to be restrained, when he had got land in his own hand, from doing that which might appear to be the very best thing he could do—namely, letting it on fair and reasonable terms? "Oh," said the Government, "that will interfere with the system which we contemplate as the best system to be in future adopted in Ireland, and we do not want to have any of this free contract, because it may prejudicially affect the relations of present tenants with their landlords in every part of the country." The Government did not want free contract lest it should interfere with the good working of their new patent system. It was not the injustice done to existing tenants, or the harm done to anybody, that the Government feared; but it was the harm that might possibly be done to their new system if there was free contract. That was the only meaning he could attach to the explanation of the Government—an explanation which was so unsatisfactory to him that he was bound to ask for more instruction.

said, it was very possible that under this sub-section they might arrive at a very ridiculous complication. Suppose that after the passing of the Act—say, next year—a landlord created a future tenancy, that the present tenant of a farm of 30 acres adjoining was obliged to sell, that the landlord exercised his right of pre-emption, and wished to let the farm to the future tenant, with whom he had contracted for the adjoining farm, under this sub-section he could not dispose of it in the way he wished.

said, the question seemed to be whether the intention of the Bill was to be more or less frustrated by the omission of this sub-section, because the whole Bill proceeded on the assumption that it was necessary to restrain the competition for land in Ireland, and this was one of the means of restraining it. He did not think the argument of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) was at all applicable. If a landlord wished to take land into his own hands, and was willing to pay a proper price for it, there was nothing to prevent his doing so; but he thought the Government were perfectly justified in restraining any attempt on the part of the landlord to create future tenancies with the object of defeating the Bill. He was glad to hear the Government did not intend to make any concession on this point.

said, the Bill seemed to him to be inconsistent with itself. The original demand was that future tenants should be altogether exempt from the operation of the measure; and when the right hon. Gentleman opposite talked of standing as arbiter between the parties, he forgot that he had already made terms with one side, who were now asking only half of what they asked before.

said, this was vital to the principle of the Bill, and he did not know that he could add anything to that which had fallon from the hon. Member for the County of Cork. It was perfectly evident that there was underlying all these criticisms a consciousness of what would be done if further concessions were made; the landlords would go into the Court and exercise the right of pre-emption at as low a value as possibe, and they would realize the pretium affectionis from incoming tenants. In that way in a very short time there would not be a single present tenant in the whole of the country. It was essential, if this Bill was to have a chance, that those provisions should remain.

wished to know on what ground this had been put forward as the policy of the Bill? It was said that if it was struck out any landlord could go into the Court and would have the right of pre-emption. Hon. Members must know that the landlord would not have a chance of exercising his right of pre-emption unless the tenant wished to sell. How was the landlord to get all his tenants to give him the opportunity of exercising his right of pre-emption in the way contemplated by the clause? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) objected that by the excision of this clause the unfortunate tenant would be left without protection, and that they would in that way defeat the policy of the Bill. But the tenant was already protected, for he had the Compensation for Disturbance Clause, and he also had the advantage that before this terrible transaction he would have seen the rent fixed for the former tenant. He would know what was a fair rent, and he would have a very fair standard to go by in order to judge what was a fair amount which he himself should be asked to pay. The present tenant would be there, or, if he desired to sell, they must assume that he had had his rent fairly fixed by the Court.

He may or may not have had his rent fixed.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must see that if he had not a fair rent he would go to the Court and have the rent ascertained. How could it be maintained that the tenant was unprotected if this sub-section was struck out? The tenant would know very well what kind of rent he ought to be asked to pay, and he would be better protected than he was at present. It was said they would defeat the object of the Bill, which was to encourage free sale, if the sub-section were struck out. Well, he admitted that the policy of the Bill was to encourage a system of free sale, but it was not to encourage a system of free sale at exorbitant prices, and what he understood to be the great boon given to the landlord in this right of pre-emption was that he would thereby have the power of preventing the interest in the holding being sold at an exorbitant price—that the landlord might step in and say, "I prefer to have the fair price estimated for me and I will pay it myself." If the policy of the sub-section were to be to encourage reckless bidding amongst would be tenants, the excision of the clause would put a check upon the practice; but it all came back to this, in the end, that the clause was inconsistent in its various members. He could not see how the arguments of the hon. Member for Berkshire had been in the least degree answered; it seemed to him that the clause was not only inconsistent in its various members, but was contrary to the policy of the Bill.

wished to say a word with regard to the justice of this transaction from the point of view of the tenant. Supposing there was no 1st clause in the Bill, the tenant would have a Common Law right to sell his tenancy at the highest price he could obtain for it. The 1st clause rather cut him down, and what the tenant enjoyed was not free sale, but restricted sale—restricted by the right of pre-emption on the part of the landlord. As an equivalent for that restriction this sub-section was required. So far as the landlord was concerned, it was voluntary. He could come in unfettered by conditions if he liked; but, from the statement of the Prime Minister, it was quite evident that in justice to the tenant this provision should be inserted.

said, the argument of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) certainly had the advantage of being logical; his argument was entirely against any such thing as the right of pre-emption. The hon. Member seemed to think that pre-emption was so bad that the more it was watered down and killed the better; and that the provision under discussion really would have the effect of emasculating the right of pre-emption given in the 1st clause. From his (Mr. Gibson's) point of view the right of pre-emption should either not have been given at all, or, if given, it should have been preserved and strengthened. When it was given nothing was heard about a landlord wanting to exercise it for selfish purposes, such as increasing the demesne. On the contrary, it was said it was one of the means by which a landlord might exercise some influence over the management of his property. They had been reminded that the right of pre-emption was one of the means given to the landlord by which he could moderate some of the disturbing influences that might be brought about on his property by a reckless use of the privileges of free sale. The Government expressly took away from the clause those words enabling the Court to moderate the price, and allowed it to remain so as to confer upon the Court the humble function merely of ascertaining the fair price. The landlord could only exercise the right of pre-emption, therefore, by paying the proper price ascertained by the Court. If the Court had ascertained what was the fair price, why should not the landlord be restored to perfect property in what he had bought? Do not let him buy if they did not want him to have the rights of property, and if they did let him buy do not restrict him in this way. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had put a case to the Committee which had rather reduced this to an absurdity, and he (Mr. Gibson) would give another which would have the same effect. Supposing a landlord had bought a farm on the conditions under the Bill, and he then said, "family reasons," or "my own health compel me to give up the farm," he (Mr. Gibson) would contend that they would not allow that person to go into the market to make a new letting, but they compelled him to make a letting with a present tenancy. Was that just or reasonable? Where was the equity of the provision? Thus was a proposition which, if defended at all, should be defended in the interest of the future tenant. The old tenant was not in question; he had been paid—he had gone away, he was done with, and it was immaterial to him what became of the let- ting. The Prime Minister had said that the object of this provision was to avoid changes which a few years after the passing of the Bill the landlord might otherwise effect. The landlord might acquire the land by pre-emption, and might endeavour to make a letting in the nature of a future tenancy. But the landlord could only buy from a tenant who desired to leave the holding; therefore, the interest of the old tenant, who voluntarily announced that he did not wish to stay and could not stay, would not be affected. The old tenant, therefore, was out of the question. This was in effect to penalize the right of pre-emption which the Government had given at the outset. They should not have given it at all if they were not prepared to allow the landlord to exercise the right with freedom. Having given the right the Government was bound to leave the landlords in possession of it, and not to fetter them in the extraordinary way proposed by the sub-section.

, said, he quite agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, that the right of pre-emption was a very inconsistent right to put in the Bill; and not only was it inconsistent, but it was a most dangerous power to have left in the hands of the landlords of Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen belonging to the Opposition had maintained, in the course of this discussion, that the sale was a free sale between the landlord and tenant. This very thing showed the opposite. It was not a free sale between the landlord and tenant. What did the sub-section say? It said—"That where a present tenancy in a holding was purchased by the landlord from the tenant in exercise of his right of pre-emption under this Act, not on the application or by the wish of the tenant, or as a bidder in the open market, then if the landlord, within 15 years from the passing of this Act, re-lets the same holding to another tenant, the same shall be subject, from and after the time when it has been so re-let, to all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to present tenancies." Surely that was a free contract between the landlord and tenant; but it would be more candid if hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches argued the question on a different basis altogether. Why did they not say at once that the application of future tenancies as compared with present tenancies was the best form in which the tenantry of Ireland could hold the land? Now, if future tenancies were the best for the tenant farmers of Ireland, why did not hon. Gentlemen say so at once, and argue against present tenancies altogether? Hon. Gentlemen, however, did not say so; and if they allowed that the present tenancies were better, was it not right on the part of the Government to try and prevent landlords creating tenancies without having something bôna fide, at the bottom of them? Hon. Members were not prepared to argue in that way, because they wished to throw dust in the eyes of those who were in favour of present tenancies. They wished to show hon. Members that they were not against future tenancies, but that they were fighting entirely for justice to the landlords as between them and the tenants.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had declared that Gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House were not prepared to argue that future tenancies were not better than present tenancies for the people of Ireland. He must say for his own part he thought they were. They were told, with reference to present lettings, that it was necessary to appeal to the Court because, in many cases, they had been over-rented. It was said that the tenants under such circumstances might have become attached to their farms, and, in spite of the heavy charge made upon them for their improvements, were reluctant to give up the holdings. None of these arguments, however, applied to future tenancies. An hon. Member had asked—"Why should not I, as a landlord, be allowed to take a farm on the same conditions as a tenant?" and he had said that the future tenant, it was to be presumed, would not pay a rent unsatisfactory to himself, and if he did he was protected by the Bill from any subsequent raising of his rent. The landlord could not raise the rent without the tenant having a right to go to the Court and appeal against it. When the Bill was brought in great stress was laid on the clause giving the right of pre-emption to the landlord, and it was said that that was one of the means that would be looked to to prevent extravagant prices being given under the right of free sale. Well, he agreed it was the most important part of the Bill; but, if it was so, and if it was necessary to guard against extravagant prices being given under the right of free sale, why introduce a condition which would have the effect of altogether limiting the power that the landlord ought entirely to possess over the land he had so acquired? He could see no reason for it whatever. The Bill was open to the objection that had been made against it generally—namely, that the present tenants were to be benefited at the expense of the future tenants in time to come. It was only right that they should modify that objectionable part of the measure.

said, he wished to add this to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) had taunted the Conservative Members with not saying what they meant about the Bill. He had asked—"Why do not hon. Gentlemen behind the Front Opposition Bench argue against present tenancies or against some of the main principles of the Bill?" Surely the hon. Member must know that very often—far too often, in the opinion of some Members of this Committee—the Conservative Members had done nothing else but argue, to the best of their ability, against the principles of the Bill from beginning to end, and they believed they had done it with success—they believed they had demolished the arguments advanced in favour of the Bill, not only out of their own mouths, but from the mouths of the authors of the measure themselves. It was therefore rather a strong thing for Irish Members to turn round upon the Conservative Members at this point and say that they were afraid to declare what they thought of the principles of the Bill. There was one thing with regard to this sub-section which he had not yet heard mentioned, and that was that if it was retained in its present form the result would be that the same thing would be sold, it might be, twice or three times over, or as many times over and over again as anyone might like to imagine. Take the case of a landlord who had purchased the tenant right, and supposing he re-let the farm, the holding, according to the sub-section, would have to be subject to all the con- ditions of a re-letting. Then the tenant might sell the tenant right over again. Surely never before had such a preposterous proposal been made. The tenant could sell the value of his occupancy when he desired to leave the farm. Supposing it fetched 20 years' purchase, the landlord might buy it under his right of pre-emption; he might let it again at a fair rent, and again the tenant would be allowed to sell the tenant right. The tenant might sell at the same price that had been fixed before by the Court; and they were told that whatever happened the tenant right was not to be carved out of the rent. The tenant right might be sold ten times over, and yet it was said it was to have no effect whatever on the rent at which the farm was to be let in the future. He did not know what course the Mover of the Amendment intended to take—it was no use voting against a mechanical majority, the Members of which fought at the behest of the Prime Minister, without thinking for themselves—but, for his own part, he should be inclined to take a division against this sub-section.

said, he could not understand on what principle this sub-section had been introduced. It seemed to him that the purchase of the tenant's interest under this Bill was the same thing as the purchase of the tenant right by the landlord in Ulster under the old tenant right system. When that tenant right was purchased by the landlord the tenant right was extinguished; the landlord paid what was supposed to be the value of it, and both the landlord's and tenant's interest became vested in the landlord. If he might use a legal phrase, the tenant's title became "merged" in the landlord's title; but now they wanted the title to emerge again, and become the tenant's instead of the landlord's.

said, that, seeing that the sub-section had been passed, the bad effect of it might, to some extent, be mitigated by adopting the Amendment that he would now move. His proposal was that the re-letting should have had the approval of the Court, and that the agreement should have been an agreement in writing. He hoped the Government would not object to this Amendment.

said, he could not accept the proposal.

said, he had an Amendment to propose to re-enact a certain provision which had been struck out, in order that it might be brought up in a more perfect form.

said, it was necessary that they should see this in print on the Paper before they were asked to discuss it. He must confess he failed to gather its meaning from hearing it read by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland and by the Chairman.

said, that the matter was explained at an earlier hour in the evening. The real truth was that the legal difficulty arose upon the question of expression. On account of that legal and technical difficulty the words between the second and the sixth line of the clause were struck out and brought down to the place where his right hon. and learned Friend now moved them; and the words, as moved by his right hon. Friend, with one exception, were precisely what were necessary to give legal effect to the word "now" in the clause as it stood in the Bill. The one exception which he made was that the operation of the word was now confined, in conformity with an intimation previously given to the Committee, to breaches of condition committed after the passing of the Act. That was the only change introduced.

said, he thought he might assure the hon. and gallant Baronet that there was really nothing to be afraid of in the Amendment. It appeared to him a very small matter indeed; and, though he had no objection to the Amendment passing, it appeared to him that they were wrangling about nothing.