said, he had an Amendment to propose which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce). Those who were were well acquainted with Ireland must know that a large portion of the unreclaimed moorland belonged absolutely and entirely to the landowners of Ireland. ["No, no!"] Well, a large proportion of it. And he thought he was fortified in his assertion by the statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law), who had adduced more than one instance in which moorland had been let by a landlord to a tenant at a moderate rent for a certain time, and then, upon its having been sold, or having again come into the possession of the landlord, the rent had been raised considerably. They had had given to them some very startling figures on this point, clearly showing that the land did belong, and belong absolutely, to the landlord. He only mentioned this in order to prove that a large proportion of this land was absolutely the property of the landlord, and that it was used by him for various purposes—for sporting purposes, for instance; and, in the next place, that it had been used by the landlords for allowing their tenants to turn out a certain number of sheep or cattle. The permission to use the land for grazing purposes had been given as a favour to the tenant, and in many instances, particularly in County Donegal, the landlords had taken care to reserve to themselves all rights and privi- leges in regard to this land. Where they had allowed the tenants to use it, it had only been for a few months at a time, so that it came into their possession again every year, and they were enabled to do with it as they thought proper. If that was the case, it would be a monstrous hardship if a tenant who had the right of selling his interest in his holding should also have the right of selling an interest in the privilege of using this land which had been granted to him from time to time by the landlord. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) hoped he had put the case clearly, because the matter was one that really deserved serious consideration at the hands of the Committee. He was quite sure that the Prime Minister was most anxious that nothing which could in any way imply that this property, which belonged to the landlord, should be taken away and given to the tenant to whom it did not belong, should be put in the Bill. He ventured, therefore, to hope that the words he asked the Committee to introduce, the Government would allow to be inserted.

said, he did not think that unreclaimed moorland should be excluded. Either such land was in possession of the landlord, or it was part of the tenant's holding. If, as the hon. and gallant Baronet said was the case in Donegal, the land was reserved by the landlords, it would not be affected; but, on the other hand, if it formed part of a tenant's holding, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) failed to see why it should not be dealt with by the Bill. That was precisely the kind of land that ought to be protected.

could not see any reason for the Amendment, unless it was to deter people from reclaiming moorland. If the tenants reclaimed this moorland, it was surely in the interests of the country as well as themselves; but if the Committee exempted this unreclaimed waste land from the Bill, the tenantry would have nothing to do with it.

wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, whether he had considered the question of cut-away bogland? In many cases the tenants held land from which the bog had been cut away, and which, therefore, was of no use to anyone. If the Amendment was accepted, there would be no inducement for anyone to reclaim such land. When the bog was on the land, the tenants had common right over it. He should like the Government to consider what ought to be the position of these large tracks of cut-away bog land, supposing the tenantry wished to reclaim it.

said, that the right referred to by the hon. Member—namely, the right of turbary—was well known in Ireland. Where the right was given, when all the turf was taken away the right was at an end—the thing was over. There were other cases, which were not uncommon, where the land itself was common property. In these cases, when the bog was removed, the land would still continue to be common property, and would not belong to the landlord.

said, that supposing the bog had been cut away, and the land had been put in cultivation by the tenants, it would be very unfair to allow the landlord to resume possession of it. No doubt, in the past, the landlord, if he had availed himself of his extreme rights, would have been enabled to do so; but, in the future, where the tenant had enjoyed possession of the substratum, it should be merged into his holding. He did not know whether the Bill would do anything in the matter.

said, that if a tenant went on paying a certain rent under which he enjoyed certain rights, and this right was not taken from him, by implication the land would become part of the holding.

said, he wished to point out that where the tenant had enjoyed the use of the turf on common land, it would be undesirable that the land, when cleared, should be left to go to waste. He would ask the Government to hold out some inducement to the tenants to reclaim land of that kind, and not to allow it to remain in the hands of landlords in a useless condition.

I would point out to the hon. Member for Wexford that we have no more power over land like that than we have over other rights that the landlord may possess. Unless the landlord has been taking rent for this land I do not see how we can deal with it.

said, that this case would sometimes arise, that the rent fixed for a holding would be higher in consequence of the rights of turbary than would otherwise have been the case. If a lower rent was asked when the turf had vanished the tenant would have no claims on the land.

said, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) did not see the distinction that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General drew. There might be a joint tenancy in any particular bogland, or there might be only a right of common.

said, the Amendment was an important one, and unquestionably, if it was not to be dealt with now or on Report, it might lead to a great deal of hardship. This unreclaimed moorland was sometimes let on the easiest terms, sometimes at a trifling rent, sometimes even at no rent at all. It was let, not for the purpose of reclaiming, nor for any other substantial purpose, but for the mere sake of allowing the tenantry to send their cattle on it to graze. It was sometimes given as a separate holding, and sometimes as an addition to a holding. The subsequent sub-section, he was aware, excluded pasture lands of a certain value, and also under certain other conditions; but this unreclaimed mountain land, which was very common in Tyrone and Donegal, and which had been given on easy terms, would not come within the value, or very little of it would come within the value, fixed under sub-section 3; very little would come within the value fixed under sub-section 4. The matter was of some importance, and he quite agreed with what was said by the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. O'Sullivan), that it would be unreasonable to interfere with tenants in processes of reclamation. That was not the point at all; but there were cases where the land was let on very easy terms, so that a man might occa- sionally allow his cattle to roam over it and get what pasture they could. It was certainly not reasonable that such a case as that should be dealt with. He had no doubt that on Report the question would be raised again by the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce), who was thoroughly conversant with the subject. He would, therefore, recommend that the Amendment be withdrawn.

said, he should like to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman what he meant by a "home farm;" because if he (Mr. O'Sullivan) understood the common English of it, it meant where the occupier resided, and if that were the case, every tenant farm in Ireland was a "home farm." He was afraid that the phrase would cover every farm in Ireland; at any rate, he thought the Amendment was a very dangerous one, and should not be accepted.

said, that the phrase would be understood as meaning, substantially, a pleasure farm attached to an estate—a farm cultivated by the owner of an estate for his own amusement. It was, practically, the demesne, but did not come under the definition of a demesne.

said, that as he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he wished the "home farm" to be understood as being part of a farm belonging to the owner in fee that might be a distance from the park or from the mansion. Why they wanted to bring this measure into play was because they saw the necessity of there being a partnership between the tenant and the owner. That principle was carried out in the clauses, and where the question of town parks arose there should be a partnership recognized, or the tenant's interest would be confiscated. Neither the landlord nor the tenant should be allowed to confiscate the interest of the other. He thought the words "draw farm" should be inserted as well as "home farm."

said, that if the Commissioners would be likely to take the same view of the matter as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland there would be no danger; but, as the question stood, the Amendment would be a very dangerous one. He did not know what a "home farm" could be in Ireland, if it were not a farm upon which a man lived. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman object to add the words "or ornamental residence?"

wished to know on whom the burden of proof would be thrown in these cases? This was an important question, and he had an Amendment later on to throw the burden of proof as to the present tenancy on the landlord, because he was the person who would keep books and accounts, whereas the tenants would be more likely to be without such records.

said, as he understood the Act, it would apply to all tenants of every kind. The effect of this limited section would be to withdraw certain classes of holdings, and the burden of proof would lay with the landlord to show that these were exceptions.

There can be no objection to put words to that effect in the Bill.

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any objection to adding the words "or ornamental residence?"

Those words would be altogether unnecessary, as they are included in "demesne lands."

said, it seemed to him that the Amendment was of a very ambiguous character, and would possibly do a great deal of mischief. It might be held that every farm in the possession of a landlord, which had been cultivated by him for two or three years, was a "home farm." The question was one of practice and custom—whether speaking of a "home farm" which was one or two miles away from the demense might not give rise to very serious controversy when the Bill became law? He did not see any strong argument in favour of the Amendment, or in favour of the reference to demense lands. A present tenancy could not be created on the demense, and he did not see any substantial advantage to the landlord in adopting the Amendment. Strictly speaking, it would be better to leave the subsection out altogether.

said, the term "home farm" was not understood in Ireland, but its meaning could not fail to be clear after the explanation they had received from the Treasury Bench. No doubt, the owner would be in possession of the land; but would it not be as well to insert words to that effect? He would propose that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should adopt in his Amendment the words "in the occupation of the owner."

said, that would neutralize the whole clause. It might, for family reasons, or for his own convenience, be a desirable thing, as far as the landlord was concerned, that he should be able to make a letting of his demense, and of his "home farm." He should be able to do that when an emergency arose; and, when the necessity had passed, he should have power to come back again. The Amendment would be useful in the case of minors, and a great many others.

asked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) meant to say that if there was a piece of demense land let to a tenant, the tenant should have no tenant right in connection with that holding? He (Mr. Healy) apprehended that he would. He understood that it was only the landlord in the occupation of the land himself who was not to bear the burden of the Bill.

said, that if a person severed a portion of his farm from the rest, it would cease to be a "home farm;" but it would continue to be such as long as it remained entire.

said, he should be glad if the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) would give them his opinion on the subject.

said, the matter was a very serious one, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had failed to tell them why he had not put in words to make the thing quite clear. The Amendment seemed to him to be thoroughly am- biguous, and he should have to vote against it, unless it were made clearer.

thought these words might with advantage be added to the Amendment—"or any land ordinarily in the possession of the landlord."

said, that as there was some difficulty in the matter, he would suggest that the Act should not apply to any "home farm now in the occupation of the landlord."

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might add the following—"in the occupation of the owner at the time of the passing of the Act."

said, he could speak without prejudice on that matter, as he had been in the enviable position of tenant of a "home farm" belonging to a resident in his neighbourhood. The proprietor and his family had been a long time away, and he (Mr. Mulholland) had entered into a written agreement to give up the farm at any time on a six months' notice. Unless the Amendment were agreed to, it would be impossible for anyone to make a contract of that kind, and it would be a monstrous thing to prevent such an agreement being entered into.

said, that a "home farm" might be separated into several portions, and one part might be distant half-a-mile or more from another. They should not be deprived of the privilege of having a "home farm" in cases where that farm was divided into two or more parts.

said, that land that would come under this Amendment would be land that had always been cultivated by the owner. To give the Committee an idea of land that should not come under the clause, he would imagine that on the passing of this Bill a landlord might have in his possession land thrown up a short time before by the tenants. Such land should not come under this Amendment, and any tenant taking it should have all the benefits of the Act.

said, it might prevent a division if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would add these words—"in the occupation of the owner at the time of the passing of this Act."

said, that it would be unfair to deprive a man of the power of acquiring a "home farm" years hence. He should be ready to adopt the words "or any land ordinarily being or forming part of the 'home farm.'"

Ordinarily in possession of the landlord?

said, he agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's exception, believing it to be a very reasonable one; but he thought that the word "ordinarily" used in this connection would be much more objectionable than the words of the clause. It would be better to keep the Amendment as it was, and he was sure that every hon. Member in the Committee understood perfectly well what was meant by the words "home farm."

said, the next Amendment on the Paper was in his name, and the subject with which it dealt, though a small one, had attracted a great amount of attention in Ireland. Hon. Members from Ireland had received scores of letters from persons holding town parks, complaining of their exclusion from the benefits of the Bill. There was a great deal of misconception as to what a town park was, and that misapprehension should be removed by means of the clear wording of the provisions of the Bill. The point he wished to put to the Government was this—whether, in the case of a small village in Ireland, where there was an increase of letting value, it was desirable that this exclusion should be made. He had visited a small town of 300 inhabitants in Wicklow, and a number of people had come to him and told him they occupied lands which were termed "town parks," for which they paid substantial sums. These people had shops; but they said the shops would not keep them, and they were really more in the position of farmers who happened to have shops than in the position of shopkeepers who happened to have farms. Life was very sluggish in these little towns, and the advantage of living near them and their small markets was very slight; and he would, therefore, ask whether it was not advisable to put in a provision such as he proposed in his Amendment—namely, to insert after the word "town," the words of "above 6,000 inhabitants." He knew a case where town park land was on the river side; the occupier had to pay an extra rent for it, and it was excluded under this Act. But it was flooded every year, and the tenant actually suffered a loss from it. He would urge the Government to accept the Amendment; and he would ask them, at the same time, whether they could give any idea of the total acreage of land held in Ireland which was called "town parks?" It might be useful for the Committee to have that information on Report. No doubt, it could be got from the clerks of the Unions.

reminded the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that there was a great difference of opinion existing on the subject of population. One barrister, for instance, would say that a population of 2,000 constituted a town, and another would restrict the population to 200 or 300. In that state of uncertainty, it was only natural that Irish Members should ask for an explanation of the term "town;" and he thought the Prime Minister should include some definition of this in the Bill.

fully understood the anxiety of hon. Members opposite with regard to this question, which, in many parts of Ireland, was one of deep interest. There had been many instances of what he considered to be the very objectionable practice of turning farms into town farms, in order to get the benefit of Acts of Parliament. A great deal of evidence upon this subject had been given before the Bessborough Commission. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

pointed out that the question was one of value, irrespective of population.

said, this was a question of considerable interest in a great many parts of Ireland; and, having fully considered the matter, he thought the Government would do wisely in accepting the Amendment, although he considered the figure of 6,000 as somewhat too large.

said, the meaning of the word "town" was at present an open question, and every barrister could take his own view of it. For his own part, he thought the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had gone a little too far in fixing the number at 6,000 inhabitants. The only place in which he (Mr. O'Sullivan) could find a definition of the word "town" was in the Towns Improvement Act of 1874, which included in the definition of "town or borough," a place of 1,500 inhabitants. It was a matter of notoriety that serious inconvenience arose from this uncertainty, and for that reason he urged upon the Government the propriety of introducing into the Bill a definition of some kind or other of the meaning of the word "town." If they considered the number expressed in the definition of the hon. Member for Wexford too high, they could, no doubt, get the hon. Member to name a smaller number. If some definition were not given in the clause, undoubtedly great litigation and expense would arise after the passing of the Act with regard to this particular point; and, therefore, he appealed to the Prime Minister to assist in mitigating what was regarded by Irish Members as the great blot on the Bill—namely, the enormous expense that it would give rise to.

said, it was very well recognized that there might be a large increase of value as accommodation land in the case of towns of 200 or 300 inhabitants; while, in the case of towns of 3,000 or 4,000 inhabitants, there might be none. It was, therefore, quite obvious that to confine the test to population was to ignore the most important condition of all—namely, the increase of value. It would be a retrograde step to attempt in this Bill to define that which was impossible of definition. The clause, as it stood now, was introduced into the Act of 1870, and passed unamended through that House; moreover, it passed unamended through the House of Lords, and had worked without friction ever since. He thought it better to retain the clause in its present form, inasmuch as confusion would unquestionably arise if it was attempted to draw an arbitrary line in the matter of population, which, after all, was only one test.

said, that the question of town parks was exciting, and had excited the greatest interest in Ireland, and the proof that the clause in the Land Act relating to them had not worked without friction was the dissatisfaction that now existed in some towns on the subject. It seemed to him that the Government would do well to pay attention to the opinions which had been given from almost every quarter of the Committee by hon. Members, whether Irish Members or not. Hon. Members from Ireland of every shade of politics had spoken in favour of the Amendment before the Committee, with the exception of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson). In a matter of that kind the opinions of Irish Members ought to carry with them great weight with the Government. With regard to the limitation proposed, no one would think of obstinately adhering to any particular limit. If only the Government would agree to some limit in the clause, he thought his hon. Friends would not be disposed to make any difficulty with regard to the number of inhabitants. For his own part, he was in favour of the number 6,000, which he believed was used in the Public Health Act passed in the last Parliament by the late Government as the definition of a "town." He thought it would be well if the Government were to make a further statement, inasmuch as the whole of the opinions expressed by Irish Members, with the exception of those of the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. Gibson and Mr. Plunket) was in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford.

said, he thought the word "ordinarily" ought to satisfy hon. Members below the Gangway. But the whole subject had been thrashed out in 1870; and in the course of the debates which took place on the Land Bill at that time one speaker had said that the distinction between agricultural holdings and town parks had been known for centuries. It was obvious that the tenant in these cases did not reside on the holding, and made no improvements. The custom had been for the tenant to surrender to the landlord the town park, which was never subject to sale or purchase, to the landlord who handed it over to the new tenant. There was no analogy whatever between town parks and other agricultural holdings; and, therefore, he hoped the Government would not agree to any modification of the clause which had hitherto worked well.

said, he was clearly of opinion that the term "town parks" required some definition in the Bill. He had known great hardship arise from places being treated as town parks, which were never so-called before the Act of 1870. In one case, a man who had attained the age of 90 years had lived for many years on a small farm, the rent of which had been continually raised owing to its being near a town. At his death, his son, who refused to emigrate, remained on the land, and continued to pay the increased rents, and when he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) saw him he had in his pocket a roll of promissory notes extending over a period of 15 years, with which he paid the rent; he was only able to live by the bankers, who knew the circumstances, continually advancing him money to meet the notes as they became due. For his own part, he had never been able to see any reason for the exemption of town parks from the operation of the Bill. What reason could be shown why a holding near to a town should be exempted from the jurisdiction of the Court, as regarded the fairness of the terms on which it was held, because the rent was £2 an acre instead of £1? He was unable to see why these words relating to "town parks" had been introduced at all, and trusted that if the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to consider the point further he would do so, with the view either of including town parks within the operation of the Act, which he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) thought was the right course, or, at any rate, with the view of strictly defining them.

trusted, if the words "town parks" were not altogether excluded from the Bill, that some definition would be given. He believed that anyone who had the slightest acquaintance with the working of the Land Act of 1870 would know that there was no greater difficulty than to get a definition of the word "town." There had been many opposing decisions upon this subject amongst the Judges. The words made use of in the Act of 1870 were extremely vague, and of a character to invite litigation. Notwithstanding the difficulty of making use of apt and proper words to define "town parks," yet if tenants of these holdings were to be excluded it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to clearly define the meaning they attached to the term. He respectfully submitted, as a proper solution, that the holdings should be included within the operation of the Bill. If an increase of rent ought justly to be paid to a landlord for these town parks, the Land Commissioners, who ascertained the judicial rent, would most certainly attach to them as much additional rent as might be properly paid for accommodation, so that no injury would on that account be done to the landlord. He wished to allude to the fact that there was a suggestion made by four of the members of the Bess-borough. Commission that town parks should no longer be excluded from the operation of the Land Acts. Such was their recommendation; and seeing that it could do no possible harm to the landlords, and while the reason for the exclusion of town parks which existed at the time of passing the Act of 1870 was no longer valid as applied to this Bill, he trusted the Government would not continue their exclusion.

said, he was desirous that the Government should agree to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) to exclude town parks from this clause, so that the occupiers might have an opportunity of going into Court for the purpose of having a judicial rent fixed. But if the Government could not see their way to do that, then he trusted they would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) which was then before the Committee. He had considered the subject fully, and was unable to see that it could in any way do harm to the landlord to adopt either of those suggestions, inasmuch as the Land Commission would do no injustice to the landlord in fixing the rent. There were many cases in which it would be very difficult to draw a line of demarcation between lands that were called farms, and lands that were called town parks. For instance, he know of a holding of 50 acres within a mile of a town in Ireland which was called a town park, the occupier of which paid a rent of about £6 per acre, while the farm adjoining it—and which was only a quarter of a mile further from the town—of the same size and quality of land, was let at about half that rent. The former of these was called a town farm, and the latter an ordinary farm. He could not see that the so-called town park derived any advantage from being a quarter of a mile nearer the town than the other, which was at all equivalent to the additional rent of nearly £3 10s. per acre. Again, in many towns, the occupiers did not hold the farms in the neighbourhood for the purpose of obtaining any extra profit from the fact that they were near the town. They held them in order to make some profit in addition to that which they might make from their small businesses in the town, for, owing to the very low state of business in Ireland, the profits they made by their shops were by no means sufficient to supply them with the means of living. They took these farms for the purpose of increasing their small incomes, and it was only by sending their goods to considerable distances that they could make any profit out of them whatever. Under these circumstances, he thought the Government should take the suggestions which had been made into consideration, and either withdraw the words "town parks" from the clause, or mention some number of inhabitants of the towns as a limit beyond which the clause should not operate.

thought that, inasmuch as the Government appeared to be influenced rather by the number of persons who spoke for and against an Amendment than by the arguments which they used, it was right to express his hope that they would retain the sub-section as it stood, instead of agreeing to its being altered in the direction indicated by the Amendment. It had been pointed out that town parks paid an increased rent over the other land in the district, and that they were generally in the occupation of some person living in the neighbouring town or city. Now, supposing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was accepted, and an arbitrary numerical limit as to population placed in the clause, it would, undoubtedly, result that a considerable number of persons occupying town parks would get a tenant right which they were not entitled to. He pointed out to the Committee that there was a great deal more behind this proposal than at first sight appeared. It might, for instance, very materially affect the growth of towns in various parts of Ireland, because if they gave to people occupying the lands in question rights which they never had before, and which they could sell for a considerable sum of money, they naturally increased the value of the land that adjoined the town, and made it more difficult for the landlords to afford additional accommodation.

said, the Prime Minister appeared to have forgotten that if the question of town parks came before the Court the Commissioners would have to take into consideration all the circumstances of the holding. Therefore, in taking the words "town parks" out of the sub-section there could be no possible injustice done to the landlord. On the other hand, if the words were retained a great injustice would be done in many cases, unless a close definition was given. With regard to the Amendment before the Committee, he was inclined to the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) that a numerical limit was not the only test to be applied, while he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) that for the purposes of this Bill the words "town parks" should be excluded from the clause altogether.

It appears that I have arrived at a conclusion, in conjunction with my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson), in reference to this point which will not be satisfactory to hon. Members generally. But we are now dealing with a subject of great importance, entirely distinct from the general provisions and purport of the Bill—that is to say, the local limits within which it will apply, or, as it may be termed, the geography of the question. This is a matter which has not been before under our consideration, and which is altogether new. There has been a kind of general assumption that this Bill was to adhere to the lines of the Land Act of 1870. I do not recollect that the Commission which preceded the introduction of this Bill was so minute in its inquiries as to touch upon this subject in their Report. Everyone has known for the last six months that proposals were about to be made affecting the relations of landlords and tenants in Ireland; but that was taken to mean the relations of landlord and tenant as understood in the Land Act of 1870. If I were dealing with the question for the first time I should feel strongly the appeal made to me by hon. Members. I cannot conceive for a moment that, if these matters were brought within the purview of the Court, the Court would be so insensible of its duty as to reduce the rent; and, therefore, I do not think we should be doing an injury to the landlord simply by extending to him the jurisdiction of the Court. But I feel, on the whole, obliged to take this line. I think it is our duty to say that we must regard the question of town parks as a separate matter, and that we cannot with equity to all parties introduce into the scope of the Bill at the eleventh hour—I might say at this advanced portion of the twelfth hour—of the discussion on the Bill, a subject which is new in the sense of its not having been fairly before the minds of the parties interested. Therefore, Sir, we feel it to be our duty to adhere to the clause as it stands, not as saying that the present state of the law as regards this subject is satisfactory, but because we feel we cannot undertake to legislate upon it before notice has been given to, and before we have obtained from, the persons interested, all the light which they can throw upon it.

said, the argument of the Prime Minister had proceeded upon the assumption that all parties interested in the present transactions with reference to the Land Question in Ireland had received due notice of changes proposed. Of course, it was not to be expected that the right hon. Gentleman could make himself acquainted with the movement of Irish opinion on small matters of this kind; but he was in a position to inform him that if there was one point on which Irish feeling had been expressed strongly it was upon this subject of town parks. With regard to the Notice which hon. Members had received upon this Amendment, he begged to say that he had handed it to the Clerk at the Table immediately the Bill had been read a second time, so that there had been ample opportunities for studying the Amendment on the part of hon. Members. He reminded the Premier that he appeared to be under the impres- sion that there was compensation for disturbance in the case of occupiers of these lands. It was a shocking thing to think that after they had made improvements on their farms and were turned out they were not entitled to compensation. By leaving the question of town parks in its present position the Government were simply putting a premium on agitation. They admitted the injustice of the present system, but said that, owing to the want of notice to the parties interested, it was undesirable to entertain an Amendment of this kind. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, if he could not agree to the Amendment at that moment, to say that the matter should be considered before Report.

said, as he understood the existing law, tenants who held town parks were entitled to the protection of the Act of 1870 in respect of their improvements; they were also entitled to be recouped for the money given to the previous occupier with the consent of the landlord; but they were not entitled to compensation for disturbance. If the Government would say that the Commissioners might value town parks, as well as other agricultural holdings, he believed it would add to the number of those persons in Ireland who regarded this Bill with satisfaction. But he could not support the Amendment, because, if they once landed themselves in the valuation of town parks, he could not understand how they could confine themselves to towns of 6,000 inhabitants.

said, as the Prime Minister had stated that the present law on this subject was not satisfactory, but that the question of altering it could not be entertained, because the landlords had not had sufficient notice, Irish Members would have to tell the people of Ireland that if they wished the defects in the law to be removed it would be necessary to get up another agitation.

said, the arguments of hon. Members had travelled wide of the Amendment before the Committee; and it would appear from some of them that the supporters of the Amendment wished to get rid of the exemption of town lands from the operation of the Bill altogether. But that was not the case. They were asking for a definition of "town parks," and did so with the desire of avoiding, in future, the expense and litigation which had already arisen from the state of uncertainty in which this question was involved. They wanted the Government to define the meaning of "town," for the purpose of this Bill, and not leave open the door to future uncertainty, and the inevitable expense attached to it.

hoped that the clause would be allowed to pass after the assurances of the Prime Minister. Looking at the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), it appeared to require some verbal alterations, which would make it more effectual; and he thought the best course to pursue was that this matter should be removed altogether from the difficulties of legal decisions, and that it should be placed in the hands of the new Court which was to be established under this Bill. The hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) had stated that these town parks were not subject to purchase and sale in the same way as other agricultural holdings; but he (Mr. Shaw) could point out to him many cases in the South of Ireland where the reverse was the case, very large sums being paid for them. He was in favour of the matter being dealt with in the Bill, in a manner that would do no injury at all to the rights of the landlords; while, at the same time, the interests of the occupiers were guarded. He thought the question might safely be left in the hands of the Government.

said, the proposal was that the small towns and villages should not be treated like the large towns; but it was generally the small villages that had "town parks" near them. These spaces near the large towns were, as a rule, occupied by market gardeners. It was a rare thing for large towns to have farms near them kept for grazing purposes; whereas, in the case of small places, it was very common.

I recognize the spirit of my hon. Friend's (Mr. Shaw's) suggestions; but I am bound to say that, in view of the short time that will elapse before the Report, we do not feel that we should be able to put forward any satisfactory provision dealing with the lands in question. This is a question which, undoubtedly, requires the greatest amount of consideration; and, although I might be able to satisfy myself upon it very easily, if it were to be decided according to my own view, there is another element in our judgment necessary, and that is, that we should have the benefit of all the assistance and information which can be afforded by the parties interested. It is by having had recourse to such information and assistance that we have alone been able to cope with this great Land Question to the extent which we have done. But there are other reasons which must have their due weight in deciding the course which the Government have to pursue. I do not think we have any judgment on the subject in the Report of the Bess-borough Commission; and with regard to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Martin), I can conceive that very serious objections might be raised to the removal of the words "town parks" altogether from the clause; and, again, I feel considerable doubt as to the distinction proposed to be drawn between small and large towns. I believe that the lands in question are much more known in connection with small than large towns. Then let hon. Members consider the difficulties involved in the proposal to bring town parks within the operation of the Bill. At present, the holders of town parks can claim for improvements, and even if they could claim compensation for disturbance they have no title to sell their tenant right; they have no protection against the arbitrary augmentation of rent, and, finally, they have no right to go into the Court. These are all serious questions; and although we are prepared to do our best, I cannot honestly give a promise that we can reconsider the matter usefully before Report. I frankly own, however, that the present state of the law on this subject is unsatisfactory.

said, that after the distinct statement of the Prime Minister, he could see no advantage in arguing the question further, against his decision. He, however, suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he might reasonably accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), which he should be happy to move on behalf of that hon. and learned Gentleman, if he were not in his place when it was reached by the Committee.

said, he could perceive that the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was open so far as this question was concerned; and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman required further evidence and time for consideration. He (Mr. Healy) was in a position to supply the right hon. Gentleman with plenty of evidence bearing on the subject, and would ask him if he was willing to grant a Select Committee to inquire into the question of "town parks" next Session, with a view to striking out the words relating to them from the Act, if the Report of the Committee was in favour of that course?

As I have already indicated, I am not prepared to affirm that the present law bearing upon this subject is satisfactory. We regard the question as to the best means of dealing with this matter as open to consideration; but we may find it to be our duty to investigate it during the Recess.

was understood to say he did not, of course, know the exact view which the hon. Member (Mr. Leamy) took of the advantage which the agricultural labourer might derive from being able to go into Court; but the matter was open to question. He thought it would be safer to leave it to be dealt with in the manner proposed by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The labourer in Ireland was not constantly employed on one farm, and, indeed, the less he was tied to one neighbourhood the better it would be for him. It was not thought desirable to give him a position as against the farmer; and, consequently, it was decided not to allow the operation of this Bill to apply to very small holdings, at any rate, to less than half an acre of land.

thought the labourer should be left alone to go to the Court or not as he pleased.

thought the Government would do well to leave the clause as it stood. He asked his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.

said, the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Leamy) would discourage persons who might otherwise be willing to let a quarter of an acre, because they would be creating an estate that it would be very difficult to manage.

said, he had understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had expressed his intention of accepting the Amendment in his (Mr. Brodrick's) name, to substitute the word "half" for the word "quarter," as expressed in this sub-section. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would adhere to that view, because the Amendment was intended solely for the benefit of the agricultural labourer. As the Bill stood, it was impossible for the landlord to apply for the purpose of labourers' allotments more than a quarter of an acre of land, because he would, by giving a larger allotment, bring the letting within the operation of this Act. He (Mr. Brodrick) could point to two cases in which the operation of the landlords in respect to cottage allotments had been suspended since the Bill was introduced; and it would be most prejudicial to the labourers if landlords were thus prevented from placing them in a better position.

hoped his hon. Friend would not press this Amendment. He did not believe that if the Bill remained in its present form, so far as this sub-section was concerned, that the holdings would be limited to a quarter of an acre. On the contrary, he believed they would be much greater, because he thought that the landlord would find it was to his interest to give the labouring class a position as well as the tenant class. It would undoubtedly be the case in the part of the country where he resided.

thought that the Amendment should be agreed to, because the labourer could easily cultivate half an acre of land in his spare time; and it was undoubtedly to his benefit that the landlord should feel himself free to apportion more than a quarter of an acre.

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper relating to minors, which, however, he should not move at that moment, in the hope that his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland would consider the matter before the Report. The Bess-borough Commission had reported that it was reasonable that in the case of land being let during the minority of the landlord there should be some power of contracting tenants out of the operation of the Act.

said, he did not see, at the moment, any reason for making the distinction suggested in the case of land belonging to minors, who were always pretty well looked after by competent persons. But he would consider the matter before Report.

said, there were several Amendments raising the question whether a lease, which could be proved to have been obtained by force, might be varied by the Court or declared to be void, thus placing the lessees in the position of present tenants; and it would probably be convenient if the question were discussed as a proposed addition at the end of the clause, after the other Amendments to the clause had been disposed of.

said, he was willing to fall in with the suggestion of the Chairman that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland should take pre- cedence, although he (Mr. M'Coan) was bound to say that he preferred his own Amendment on the Paper to that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, that, as the object he had in view was covered by the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, he did not intend to move the Amendment standing upon the Paper in his name.

said, he had an Amendment of his own on the Paper; but he should not press it at that juncture. It was to introduce into the Amendment before the Committee, after the words "at the expiration of existing leases," the words "made since the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870." The Amendment moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was one which, although moved in the most concise form, and as if it were one of little or on importance, was, in reality, one of the most important Amendments proposing to introduce one of the most startling changes ever made in an important Government Bill. If there was one thing which more than another appeared to be tolerably plain to anyone reading the Bill for the first time—any clause that appeared to convey its own meaning with precision and clearness, it was the 47th clause. That clause was one which preserved intact and inviolate, governed by existing provisions, contracts that had been entered into between landlords and tenants, or between the representatives of landlords and tenants who had entered into them on their behalf. The earlier part of the clause, before the Amendment proposed to be introduced by his right hon. and learned Friend, laid down as clearly and precisely as possible what should be the rights and positions of those parties; and, in point of fact, he (Mr. Gibson) was disposed to think that if the Chairman would examine with attention the earlier part of the clause, he would be disposed to rule that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was out of Order, for it was certainly entirely outside the meaning of the words of the clause antecedent to the Amendment. The words of the clause, as they now stood before the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend, set forth that—

"Existing leases shall remain in force to the same extent as if this Act had not passed, and holdings subject to existing leases shall be regulated by the provisions contained in the said leases and not by the provisions relating to the tenancies in that behalf contained in this Act."

If there were one thing that was absolutely clear about existing leases, it was that they all contained covenants to surrender in good order and condition at the termination of those leases, and he maintained that the Amendment was absolutely inconsistent with those covenants, because it said that notwithstanding their existence the tenant should hold on as if he were a present tenant. Therefore, he put it to the Chairman, as a matter of Order, whether the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was not absolutely inconsistent with the words at the commencement of the clause as already passed? But it did not at all rest on what they all knew was contained in every lease drawn up in Ireland; but, under the statute of 1860—an Act called Deasy's Act—what should be covenants on the part of every landlord and tenant were provided for, and one of the covenants in every tenancy was a covenant on the part of the tenant to surrender and yield up at the termination of the lease the quiet and peaceable possession of the holding; and notwithstanding this and the clear provision of this section of the Bill in which the deliberate opinion of the Government was stated in the earlier portion, as framed by his right hon. and learned Friend, that the provisions of the lease were to have absolute and com- plete vitality and vigour, the right hon. and learned Gentleman now proposed to provide that at the termination of the lease, instead of going away and allowing the landlord to resume his rights, the tenant was to be able to stay on, not in any doubtful position, not in the position of a future tenant, but in the position of a present tenant—that was to say, with an absolute right to walk into the Court for the purpose of having the rent revised, a process that would give him a tenancy of 15 years, and a constant right of renewal as often as he might please. So that this short and apparently innocent Amendment was to add to the duration of the longest lease at its termination, a provision nullifying one of its most important expressed covenants, and extending the term of tenancy as long as the tenant pleased, with the power of re-adjusting the rent as often as he might think proper at the end of every successive term of 15 years. Never was there a more distinct and flagrant violation of contract than was proposed by this Amendment, which would set aside the most solemn covenants and the most deliberate engagements as between man and man. He desired to point out to the Committee the necessity of making no mistake as to the second Amendment on the Paper in the name of his right hon. and learned Friend which proposed to deal with leases that might be regarded as unreasonable and inequitable. The present Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend, was absolutely distinct from any suggestion of the kind contained in the second Amendment. It proposed to graft on all leases, no matter when made, nor how made, no matter how many important conditions were executed by the landlord, no matter how low the rent, it proposed to say to the landlord—"At the termination of your lease you must regard your tenant not as a man bound by covenant to surrender his lease, but as a man bound by this new confiscating provision to hold on if he pleases for terms of 15 years as often as he likes, with power to have the rent revised." He (Mr. Gibson) ventured to say that never was a clause more opposed to justice and common sense, nor more absolutely opposed to every other proposal of the Government that the Committee were entitled to regard as expressing the de- liberate opinion of the Government, attempted to be inserted among the provisions of any Bill. He thought he was entitled to say that on this measure his right hon. and hon. Friends and himself had offered nothing but moderate, temperate, and concise criticisms of the Government proposals. The alteration it proposed to effect in the Bill was one of a most serious and vital kind; and he held that it would have been a great deal more frank and manly, and would have presented the action of the Government in a more bold and independent way, if they had at once said, "We will strike this part of the clause out of the Bill;" because they were here producing an Amendment which killed the previous words of the clause, while at the end of the clause they proposed to introduce another Amendment that would intercept all the other leases that might have escaped the operation of the Bill. The Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend was challenged in several ways. He was at present challenging the absence of discrimination in the Amendment with regard to leases. The Amendment dealt with all leases, no matter what their date, no matter what the conditions were as they were originally executed, whether they were executed before the passing of the Land Act of 1870, and before a knowledge of the provisions of that Act, or after 1870, with a knowledge of its provisions and what it sought to effect. That was a point that was not devoid of a broad significance; it was not a point that could be disregarded by anyone who was in the slightest degree acquainted with the history of the subject, nor by any man of common sense whether he was acquainted with the subject or not. The whole foundation of what was regarded as the tenant right of the Irish tenants outside of Ulster was rested on the claim to compensation for disturbance under the 3rd clause of the Land Act of 1870; and they had heard over and over again—in some cases from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and in some others from the Chief Secretary for Ireland—that that clause, introduced for one purpose, was now made the foundation of proposals for another purpose—that having been introduced in 1870 not to found a tenant right nor a claim for joint ownership—a claim entirely repudiated in 1870 by the Prime Minister—it was now to be acted on by the Prime Minister, as constituting, whether originally intended or not, a claim to tenant right. The foundation of what he (Mr. Gibson) called by courtesy the equity of this Bill rested on claims that were founded on the existence of a right to compensation under the 3rd clause of the Land Act of 1870. How, he asked, did that clause, which, as he had said, was made the foundation of the clause of this Bill, affect leases? It must be obvious to any man, he cared not whether educated technically or whether he regarded it by the strong light of common sense, that they must take into consideration what was the lease? A lease made antecedent to the year 1870 had absolute validity given to all its covenants under the old Common Law—that was to say, at the moment at which he spoke in respect of a lease made prior to 1870, the landlord was entitled to resume possession if he pleased, and no tenant holding under such a lease could, at its termination, have any right to ask for compensation for disturbance. This was a position that could not be gainsaid, denied, or questioned. It was not in accordance with common sense to treat a landlord having these rights as being in the same position as a landlord in the case of a lease made after 1870; and, therefore, Section 3 of the Act of 1870 made a broad and clear distinction. He did not know whether his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had considered this point. He believed that the moment the right hon. and learned Gentleman did bring his mind to bear on it he would alter the proposal to what would be just and fair; but he was curious to know how his right hon. and learned Friend would justify this common treatment of all landlords who started on entirely dissimilar conditions. He (Mr. Gibson) confessed that, at the present moment, he was entirely unable to see it. He believed that some hon. Members had intimated that the tenants, at the end of their leases, would find themselves placed in the position of future tenants. That was the modest way in which it was at first put—and anything might be called modest in comparison with what came afterwards; but after the speech that had been made by the Prime Minister one day, and recalled. the day after, the suggestion as to a future tenancy vanished, and the idea of a present tenancy was developed; and they now found it stated in the Amendment that, at the termination of his lease, a tenant was to be regarded as a present tenant. He should like to hear from his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland how he proposed to justify a broad proposal like this, which made no discrimination or distinction whatever. His right hon. and learned Friend, who had moved the Amendment in about two minutes, had justified it by what had been already done under a judicial lease, and according to the usage prevailing in Ireland. Surely, each of the inferences of his right hon. and learned Friend was destructive of the argument he had sought to rely upon. A judicial lease could only be entered into after the passing of this Act by the landlord with a full knowledge of what he was doing, and on the actual determination of the judicial lease; he was warned by the section that a certain class of tenants who would be called into existence by it would be present tenants. Where, he asked, was the analogy? The landlord, in the case of a judicial lease, acted with his eyes open at the outset; but after they had said to the landlords, who might have made leases of 40 years, or whose ancestors might have made long leases before them, that at the end of the lease the lessee would be a present tenant, he wanted to know where the analogy could be? He was told that another argument was to be based on what was largely the usage in many of the counties of Ireland. They all knew that the charges that had been made against the landlords had faded away and melted into thin air, and now the good-natured way in which they had treated their tenants was to be used as a weapon against them; and that, whether they liked it or not, they would be compelled to see their property transferred from them to their tenants. In conclusion, he wished to know how the Government could justify the application of the same drastic measures to all cases, regardless of the date and conditions, or bases of the rent, of the improvements effected by the landlord, and of every kindness and consideration they might hitherto have shown their tenants?

said, he would like to offer a suggestion, and ask the impartial ruling of the Chairman on a point of Order. The clause said—

"Any leases or tenancies existing at the date of the passing of this Act, except yearly tenancies and tenancies less than yearly tenancies, which existing leases and tenancies (except as aforesaid) are in this Act referred to as existing leases, shall remain in force to the same extent as if this Act had not passed."

Then came the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, which said—

"At the expiration of existing leases the lessees shall be deemed to be tenants of present ordinary tenancies from year to year, at the rents, and subject to the conditions, of their leases respectively, so far as such conditions are applicable to tenancies from year to year."

If the first part of the Bill were to remain, and to be regarded as sense, the tenancy must be "as if this Act had not passed;" and he would ask whether the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was absolutely in Order?

pointed out that what had apparently caused some confusion in the understanding of the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was that it ought to have been placed two words later, after the words "Provided that." He understood that all the conditions, &c. of leases were to remain as if this Act had not been passed, and that this should be a Proviso—an exception.

said, he would amend his Amendment by moving that it be inserted after the words "Provided that."

moved, after the words "at the expiration of existing leases" in the proposed Amendment, to insert the words "made since the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870."

said, he was bound to say that the argument of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) against placing the lessee of an expiring lease in the position of a present tenant was absolutely unanswerable; but he (Lord Randolph Churchill) was also bound to say that he could not follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the distinction he had drawn between leases made since the Act of 1870 and those that were made before the passing of that Act. Under the Act of 1870 they had invited the landlords to give leases to the tenants, and certainly of the two the leases made since the Act of 1870 were deserving of most consideration.

said, he had been dealing with a technical distinction between the two.

said, he certainly thought the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland very unfortunate, as it was copied verbatim from one standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Wexford. (Mr. Healy), and it was evident that it was never intended by Her Majesty's Government when they brought in the Bill. Of course, if the hon. Member for Wexford was to be the draftsman of this Bill, hon. Members who thought with him (Lord Randolph Churchill) must resign themselves to it; but, with all deference to the ruling of the Chairman, he still thought the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was out of Order. The Amendment he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had to move was to amend the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland's Amendment by adding, after the word "leases" the following words:—

"At the expiration of existing leases, with the exception of all leases which at the date of the passing of this Act have fifteen years to run."

Irish leases were nearly all for 30 years and upwards, and by making that Proviso they would only be doing an act of justice. Let them take the case of leases drawn up only the other day for a term of 30 years; there would be less than justice in the proposal of the right hon. and learned, Attorney General for Ireland. He did not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would press his Amendment; but if he did not, or it was not carried, he should ask the Government to kindly consider his Amendment, making some provision for leases which, at the date of the Act, had 15 years to run.

said, he had to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), who had stated that the proposal as to leases had come on the Committee by surprise, that the moment the Bill appeared the exclusion of leases was the subject of universal complaint in Ireland. Nearly every Irish Member had mentioned the exclusion; and the Prime Minister, though he gave no pledge, admitted that the question deserved consideration, and promised to reserve it for consideration, without saying how he would deal with it. He therefore thought the Irish. Members had no right to complain of a surprise. As to leases, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had allowed the justice of making present tenants of those who had got leases since 1870. [Mr. GIBSON: That is quite a mistake.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to do so. Was it the fact that leaseholders who received their leases since 1870 had no just cause of complaint? In 1868–9 a great number of leases were forced on the tenants, with the knowledge that the Act of 1870 was coming on. In the county of Cork, on an estate where leases had never been given, the tenants went to the Bess-borough Commission and declared that in 1869 they were obliged to take leases with an increased rent, and those who refused to take them were fined by increased rents. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had stated that it would be very unjust, if a good landlord who had made improvements should, at the expiration of a tenant's lease, be subject to the hardship that the tenant should be placed in the position of a present tenant. How was it unjust? Suppose a tenant with a 21 years' lease had made improvements, would not the landlord have his remedy at the expiration of the lease? Would not the Court take into consideration the improvements in fixing the rent? If the tenant sold his interest, would not the Court take into consideration the improvements made by the landlord? What injustice would be done? Take the other case. Suppose the Government had not made this concession. If leaseholders were to be left without protection after the expiration of the leases, there would be in every district in Ireland a certain number of discontented people considering themselves excluded from the benefits of the Act, and a chronic state of discontent would have been created. He felt bound to express his gratitude to the Government for making this concession, and he felt certain that no concession made in the Bill was of more value, or more likely to make this Bill a great and beneficial measure.

said, it was known in Ireland that there were a species of leases for lives with covenants for perpetual renewal. They practically contained a specific provision for renewals; but those provisions had been broken through. The Courts had, however, enforced specific performance of them in the case of solemn contracts under seal. What they held was to be looked at was the security of rent to the landlord. The Courts of Equity had acted in that way in Ireland—the practice was not known in England—and the Tenantry Act of 19 & 20 Geo. III. declared that if leases contained solemn contracts and specific covenants, on the fall of lives certain renewals should be claimed; and not only had the Courts enforced that, but the Ulster Tenant Right Act had rehabilitated these proceedings, and declared that renewals should be had. He referred to this because it would appear from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had said that there were very startling proposals made to change these leases. The new Court would be a Court of Equity, and the object of that Court would be to secure landlords in their rents, and a continuance of the leases on their expiration. It was practically the custom in Ireland that on the expiration of leases the tenants not only held on, but were allowed to hold on; and he held that it would be only a natural sequence to carry that on and deal with tenancies from year to year in the same way as if there were no leases.

thought the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) was under a misconception. He (Mr. Gibson) had stated throughout that he was anxious to elicit as early as he could some explanation from the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland as to the indiscriminate way in which these leases were treated. He should ask permission to withdraw his Amendment; but he wished for an explanation as to the difference between himself and the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

observed that if the lettings were from year to year they would be present tenancies within the meaning of the Bill, with all their incidental advantages. The fact that leases ran for a certain definite number of years did not, in his opinion, make any difference so far as the present point was concerned; and his observation applied alike to leases made before and after 1870. It would be manifestly useless for a landlord to get hold of farms of a few acres, each scattered over the face of the country. What could he do with them? They would only run to waste and go back to their original condition. Accordingly, they found in Ireland that usually, if a landlord thought of resuming possession of a farm from a tenant, he put someone else into it as tenant. But almost universally at the termination of a lease, the lessee remained in undisturbed possession, though there was commonly a re-arrangement of the rent. The landlord, in fact, knew he would get a better rent from the occupying tenant than from anyone else, and almost always so dealt with him. He thought the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he had only moved his Amendment to obtain an explanation hardly squared with his somewhat fierce onslaught on the proposals of the Government.

said, that when the Bill was introduced he had asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether it provided that on the expiration of a lease the tenant right of Ulster should be continued, and the tenant be considered a tenant from year to year. The reply was that it did, and now the provision appeared to have been introduced in the Bill. He could not forget that in the last Parliament a Bill was introduced establishing this principle in Ulster by the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland), and a similar Bill introduced by the noble Lord who then represented the County Down (Lord Arthur Hill-Trevor) was defeated in the House of Lords. Also, in company with the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. Lewis), he (Mr. Macartney) himself had introduced a Bill in which there was a clause to the same effect as this, so far as Ulster was concerned. He thought there should be no difference between one part of the country and another.

I do not rise to propose any Amendment, but to say one or two words on what I consider to be the position of this question; and if my advice be taken; I would suggest that we had better take issue on the words proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. These questions are a good deal complicated, and the real point we have to consider is whether this new proposal of the Government is one which can be accepted or not? My right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) spoke with regard to a distinction between particular classes of tenantry—those created before, and those created after, the Act of 1870; but the bulk of his argument pointed to no distinction being made, and I agree with my noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) that it is desirable we should take issue on the broad ground of whether this change of front ought to be allowed, and whether any sufficient grounds have been shown for it. What I would point out with regard to this Bill is that it was introduced upon a certain frame-work, for the purpose of making certain changes, but, at the same time, of saving certain conditions of tenantry which already exist; and, as we understood, the case of leases was exactly the case which was to be left out, because it had been already regulated. If we now accept this clause, with the Amendment proposed, and the other Amendment to be proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, you will exactly turn the clause inside out. It will not be merely that you will make the clause of no effect—as you have made the Emigration Clause of next to no effect—but you will turn the clause upside down. It is a sort of Trojan horse, introduced under cover of being a supporter of the lease system, and is turned to the entire overthrowing of existing leases, and leases which are in a condition in which holdings under leases are to exist when the leases have run out. It seems to me that we have had no ground whatever given for this change of front, except that when the clause was introduced in the form in which it stands, there was a great outcry in Ireland against it, and a desire to enlarge it and bring everything into it; but the Government, as they have proceeded with the Bill, have been led to entirely change their position with regard to these leases, and, in effect, to knock them on the head. Considering that we have for so many years been desirous, by legislation, by precept, by exhortation in every way, to induce landlords and tenants to make reasonable and binding arrangements, and that arrangements have been made to give the security which is needful in Ireland, to turn round and destroy the leases in this way is the most insensate thing that can be conceived. For my part, I would recommend that instead of attempting to omit this clause, or to introduce different words, we should endeavour, so far as we can, to put in our protest against this change, and, as far as we can, to hold the Government to the clause as it originally stood.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) was certainly right in saying that they ought to protest against this clause, and divide upon it. He considered that the clause as it stood might work harshly in the case of tenants whose leases fell in very shortly after the passing of the Act. He suggested that it should be amended; but would not admit that the form of Amendment proposed was the one best suited to remedy the complaint, which had foundation in fact, for it could not be suggested that tenants holding under leases were in the same position with others who held from year to year. He wanted to ask the Government whether they meant to say that all tenants hold- ing under leases at present were in exactly the same position as the yearly tenants at the present moment, or whether they drew a distinction between tenants whose leases terminated within a short time of the passing of this Bill and those whose leases would not terminate for a good many years. To ascertain that he would move the Amendment to which he had previously referred.

said, the Government did not say that the position of a lease which had 15 years to run was exactly the same as one having 100 years to run; but there was no difference between one and the other, and in point of policy it would not be expedient to create such a difference.

I will now do what I would not do before and notice the speech which we heard just before the last Amendment was moved. It is a matter of long and constant observation in this House that whenever an hon. Member or a right hon. Member is dealing with opponents who are proposing some proposition which is new, and he finds it difficult to adduce sufficient arguments against it, he always endeavours to damage and discredit it by calling it a change of front. I observe that my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) three times, in the course of a short speech, described this Amendment as being a change of front, and from that three-fold repetition I gathered that he found it not so easy to bring forward substantive objections to the proposals of the Government. As to a change of front, I need not say that is a phrase which has come sometimes from one quarter and sometimes from another. It is a perfectly fair weapon of Parliamentary warfare; but it is not to be expected that such old stagers as we are, are to be influenced by whatever force of argument may seem to be latent in the phrase. The observations of my right hon. Friend were very strong. I do not remember all the phrases he used; but he described the proposal as an entire overthrow, as reducing to nullity and absolute destruction and defeat all the covenants the leases contain, and he described it as an insensate thing. Of that I make no complaint; but is it an insensate thing, and does it overthrow existing leases, and what is the fundamental notion of leases in Ireland? The grounds upon which we justify this proposal are—first of all, the grounds of custom of the country, and, secondly, general equity. With regard to surprise, I think that argument can hardly be maintained, because, on the second reading of the Bill—and that was the first time upon which the Bill was discussed—I myself spoke of the state of the case with regard to leases in these words—

"In the same way, another bye-question which we have considered, and the result of which consideration appears in the Bill—but it may be worthy, notwithstanding, of further consideration—is the question of current leases."—[3 Hansard, cclxi. 590.]

Therefore, that distinctly left the matter open for further consideration, and I do not scruple to say there were various points of considerable importance—for example, arrears—with regard to which we felt that we could better approach such knotty questions after these main issues had been settled, than if we treated them as merely affairs to be disposed of by the Cabinet, and therefore we deferred them. First of all, let it be understood that this charge that this is an absolute overthrow of the covenants of existing leases and a nullification of the clause itself depends wholly upon a certain assumption as to what leases are understood to be in Ireland. According to the right hon. Gentleman a lease is understood to be a covenant that at the end of a certain number of years the man shall go out. But there we raise an issue of fact, and we contend that that is not so. A lease is understood to be a covenant for fixing a certain rent for a certain number of years. I mentioned in a former discussion a description of a lease given 40 years ago, and the ideas prevailing in Ireland, of a case where a man holding a lease for his own life bequeathed his interest in it. That being our opinion, and if that be the view of leases in Ireland, then the allegation from the opposite side is deprived entirely of all foundation. But then, beside the custom of the country, and the established traditional and al- most universal view in Ireland as to leases, we stand upon general equity, and collaterally, I may observe, that unless I am mistaken, a Bill was introduced into the last Parliament by an hon. Member who is now opposed to us, which distinctly recognized that at the termination of a lease in Ulster the whole interest of the man in the lease was to be kept intact. Though I have not seen the letter, I have been credibly informed—and if. I am wrong I can be easily undeceived—that shortly before the General Election the Leader of the Opposition wrote a letter, in which he approved of the principle of that Bill as sound. If the principle of that Bill was sound, it will defy the ingenuity of an hon. Gentleman who admitted the soundness of that Bill to show that the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend is unsound. We stand upon general equity as well as upon the custom of the country, and with regard to general equity, how does the matter stand? This is a question not subject to dispute, and it is one where, in my opinion, the conclusion to be drawn is that of general equity, and the fair spirit in which we should all endeavour to approach this question; and on these grounds I think the Government can well maintain the proposal they make. As to the case of the leases made before the Act of 1870, if our proposal with regard to them is defensible, it is à fortiori defensible with regard to those made since 1870. I will take one of these leases, and what has happened? I will take a lease made 30 or 40 years ago. At that time the Irish tenant from year to year had no defence at all; he was completely open to the action of the law, which was constructed, not upon a fair balance of interest betweeen the tenant and the landlord, but entirely in a sense favourable to the landlord. Under those circumstances, the tenant, thankfully perhaps, accepted in exchange for a state in which he had no defensive provision, a state under which he had a defensive provision, which was that the rent would not be raised for a certain number of years. That was the state of things he exchanged for his lease; that was the footing upon which he made his bargain. But in 1870, and now again in 1881, we have entirely changed the position of the Irish tenant, and have endeavoured to invest him, first with a right to full compensation for improvements, then to compensation for disturbance, and now the right to sell his interest in his holding, with provision against an arbitrary increase of rent, and, as a climax to the whole, with the power of going to the Court. So that while this man had been, as it were, in a stagnant state of existence, we have completely changed and advanced from a position of defencelessness to a position strongly fortified by legal rights—namely, the position of a tenant from year to year. Is it inequitable, under these circumstances, to say there is no reason to show why the man, or the representative of the man, who so took a lease 40 years ago in exchange for what was then the position of a yearly tenant, should be deprived of all the benefits, or any portion of the benefits, to be conferred upon present tenants by this Bill. Where would he have been? What is the answer? That he has had the benefit of the lease. The force of that answer depends on whether the lease is an injury to the landlord; but we have never supposed that, but that it was an advantage to both parties, and in no sense an injury to the landlord. In that case I must say that upon a mature and careful consideration of the interest of this class of persons, setting aside the main stream of motives which dictated this Bill, we are clear in the conviction that it would be most hard that in the case of a yearly tenant who had changed his position when he was in a totally different state of things 40 years ago, we should say to that tenant—"Without any fault of your own, and without having anything to allege against you, we shall exclude you from any of the benefits which, if you had continued a yearly tenant, you would now receive."

said, he wished to move an Amendment to the effect that, in such leases, no clause imposing a penalty upon the building of labourers' cottages in any farm exceeding 25 acres should be deemed valid. His object in moving that was to render null and void all such clauses, as being contrary to public policy, and throwing an unfair amount of poor rate upon the small towns, and as leading to great waste of the labourers' strength by compelling them to walk long distances to their work. That point was strongly insisted upon by the deputation that waited upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland at the Irish Office the other day; and he (Mr. Villiers Stuart) had had many communications from people in different parts of Ireland in regard to it. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would favourably receive the Amendment, or some modification of it. The persons who inserted such clauses in their leases were entitled to little consideration, because the motive for inserting them was generally to evade their just obligations—to avoid the duty of supporting in sickness and old age those labourers who had devoted their lives to working upon their properties.

said, he did not see how these words could come in at that point; and he was afraid, if they were to be adopted at all, they must assume the form of a new clause. He did not know that he should be able to accept the Amendment at any time; but certainly it could not be accepted here.

said, he understood that the Amendment had been postponed as a matter of convenience until the Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had been disposed of.

said, the Amendment which he had proposed, and which had been carried, was a mere declaration as to what would happen when the lease had expired. The present Amendment should have been moved earlier in connection with these words.

I had given Notice of the Amendment, and it was not my fault that I did not move it before.

Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment?

There seems to be no other alternative. I withdraw it with great regret; but I hope to have an opportunity of bringing it in again on Report.

said, he had a verbal Amendment to propose—namely, after the word "year" in the last Amendment, to insert the word "and."

said, he did not propose to move the Amendment which stood in his name, as the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) had superseded it.

said, the next Amendment, which stood in his name, was to enable the Commission to deal with leases which appeared to have been forced upon tenants after the passing of the Act of 1870, as the Prime Minister had expressed it, "in fraud" of the Act, and contrary to its real spirit. It was stated that there were a number of cases where such things had happened—and where tenants would be deprived of the benefit of this legislation by having had forced upon them leases which could not be regarded as other than improper and unfair; and this, if it had occurred, would be admitted to have been a most inequitable proceeding on the part of the landlords. The Amendment which he was about to propose was guarded in its language; it dealt with cases where a tenant had been forced to take a lease, the landlord seeking thereby to deprive him of the benefit of the Act of 1870. The clause ran as follows:—

"In any case in which the Court shall be satisfied that since the passing of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' the acceptance by a tenant from year to year of a lease of his holding containing terms which, in the opinion of the Court, were at the time of such acceptance unreasonable or unfair to the tenant, having regard to the provisions of the said Act, was procured by the landlord by threat of eviction or undue influence, the Court may upon the application of the tenant made within six months after the passing of this Act, declare such lease to be void as and from the date of the application or order, and upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as to the Court shall seem just: and thereupon the tenant shall as and from such date be and be deemed to be the tenant of a present ordinary tenancy from year to year at the rent mentioned in such lease."

They assumed in this particular case that the lease was destroyed and gone, and that the tenancy was a simple tenancy. He did not think any hon. Member on the opposite side could object to the Amendment, because it was merely an enabling one, one which would enable cases to be dealt with when they presented themselves, and the tenants could bring forward proof. A number of cases were stated before the Royal Commission, and although hon. Members knew very well that these statements made by tenants, who were not examined on oath, were not always to be taken as literally accurate, and though there might not be very many cases of extreme hardship, there might still be plenty of reason why a safeguard of this description should be adopted. Where such a case as that contemplated by the Amendment was proved, no Member of the Committee would say that the lease ought not to be set aside. The landlord was fully protected, and it was only in the case of gross hardship or fraud that the relief would be given.

said, he heartily supported the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, though it did not go so far as another Amendment in the same sense which he (Mr. M'Coan) had put on the Paper before it. The Amendment he had proposed was as follows:—

"Before 'any' to insert 'all leases of agricultural holdings executed since the passing of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' which can be proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been forced upon the tenants now holding under them, shall, upon application by the tenant, be subject to review by the Court; and if their covenants in regard to rent or otherwise should appear to the Court to be inequitable or oppressive, they may be varied as to the Court shall seem just, or the leases may be declared wholly void, and in all cases of such avoidance the tenants shall thereupon become present tenants under this Act."

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland's Amendment, however, would substantially do justice between the Irish landlord and tenant; and he (Mr. M'Coan) would, therefore, waive what he should be inclined to ask for as a measure of equal justice in the case. It might be imagined by some English and Scotch Members, who were not thoroughly conversant with the state of things in Ireland, that there was, at the best, only a sentimental ground for the Amendment. When the discussion, which was somewhat prematurely forced upon the Committee some three weeks ago by the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. Corbet), was going on, the hon. Gentleman adduced in support of his Amendment a lease granted on the property of Earl Fitzwilliam, and it was recognized that that lease made out rather an insufficient case for an appeal to the Committee for a concession. Earl Fitzwilliam was admittedly one of the best landlords in Ireland; in fact, so good a landlord was he, that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) admitted that his tenants had not joined the Land League, and that was, perhaps, the best proof they could possibly have that these people had no substantial hardship to complain of. But he (Mr. M'Coan) had to complain of a lease granted in the same county by a Home Rule landlord, which, he thought, illustrated the case put before the Committee by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland; and he did not think he could better support the appeal now made to the Committee than by shortly quoting a portion of a letter which he had received from the tenant holding the lease in question—a letter which was eloquent in its simplicity. The writer said—

"I will tell you the history of my lease as briefly as I can. I came into possession of this land about 20 years ago by marrying the widow of a former owner, the family having been in occupation of it for centuries."

It seemed to be a lease of lives, and the last life had died out in July, 1875. The writer went on to say that the interest in the farm passed to the son of the previous tenant, whose widow he had married, and from that son he bought the remainder of the lease. The writer went on to say—

"The land had previously been let under the old lease at £1 10s. per acre; but the landlord, immediately on the expiration of the lease, sought to raise it to £1 17s. 6d. per acre. The landlord called on me, and said unless I would give this amount he would have me turned out immediately. I explained that the land could not possibly bear so heavy a rent, and that I must ask him to reconsider the high charge to be made on it. He said he would do so, and see me again about it. However, he did not himself see me again; but I was told that I must see the agent. When I saw the agent, he said no change would be made, but I must pay on the new lease for 31 years the increased rent of £1 17s. 6d. I thought I must pay, else I should be evicted; and I remembered my delicate wife and my helpless children, and, unfortunately, I accepted the lease on these terms. I told him several times afterwards that I did not want the lease, as I should never be able to pay the amount he asked. He said I should take the lease, or a certain person"—

mentioning a well-known lawyer in Dublin, whose name he (Mr. M'Coan) would not state—

"would compel me to do so. I have paid the rent so far, and am otherwise sunk in debt in doing it; and the farm will not at all bear the rent I am forced to pay."

That was a sample of a dozen letters he had received from tenants in the county of Wicklow; and he had reason to believe that cases of that kind could be quoted, not by the score, but by the hundred, since the passing of the Act of 1870. In nearly every case the screw was put upon the tenants, with the alternative of eviction. That being so, he thought it was not an unreasonable thing for the Irish Members to make an appeal to the equity and sense of justice of the Committee, and to ask them to give the Land Commission the alternative power, either of reviewing the provisions of these leases and varying their covenants, whether with regard to rents or otherwise, or to declare the leases in question wholly void, and place the tenants in the position of present tenants. As he had said, the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) did not go quite so far as he should have proposed. In the interest of the Irish tenantry, he should have been glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been prepared to go a little further; but, under the circumstances, as a Representative of the County of Wicklow, he very gratefully accepted the Amendment. It would do a large measure of justice to a considerable class situated as he had described.

There are a large number of Amendments to this proposal, and these will all have to be called before we get into a general discussion.

said, that in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) he would move the next Amendment. It would not be candid of him if he did not say, whether the words were accepted or not, he should feel bound to give his reasons more in detail against the whole Amendment by-and-bye.

said, he could not accept the Amendment.

moved to leave out the words "since the passing of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870.'" He was very glad indeed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had moved his Amendment, and he thought it would go a long way towards giving satisfaction in Ireland. But why they should have stopped at the Land Act of 1870—[Mr. GIBSON: Hear, hear!]—he was glad to have the approval of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin—was what puzzled him. There was nothing sacred in parchment and sealing wax. A contract between any two individuals was just as holding and as binding if made in words as it would be when put upon paper; and it was not because a man wrote on parchment and then stamped it with sealing wax that the agreement acquired anything of a more sacred or sacramental character. Therefore, why leases should be supposed to be documents incapable of being broken more than any other form of contract was a thing he was unable to see; and it was charming to think that in submitting the Amendment he had the support and approval of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. This was a matter upon which it was desirable that there should be a good deal of evidence. Though it was true that since the Act of 1870 there had been more inducements to insist on taking a 31 years' lease in order that there might not be compensation for disturbance, still there had been great inducements to force on leases before the Act of 1870. No doubt, since the Act of 1870 there had been more unjust leases than at any other time forced upon tenants; and he could appreciate the position of the Government, which he took to be this—that as it was by their Act of 1870, and this stupid proposal as to a 31 years' lease that this unfortunate state of things had been brought about, they would redress the wrong they had done in 1870, and propose the Amendment. That was a fair position; but if they were once for all to settle the Irish Land Question, why should they not do it thoroughly? It was admitted that unfair documents had been imposed on tenants previous to the Act of 1870. Anyone who went through Ireland would discover many pieces of parchment in the possession of the peasantry containing the most extraordinary covenants—for instance, there was Campion's compound lease. The Duke of Argyll the other night had taken to task the evidence of one of the County Court Judges as to the case of Mrs. White. His Grace had also found fault with the evidence of Professor Baldwin with regard to Mrs. White's property, and he stated that he had gone into the case, and had failed to find any hardship at all. Well, he (Mr. Healy) had spoken to these poor people himself, and he had been shown a letter which had been sent by the agent to the tenants, and it was to this effect—"John So and So, if you do not accept the lease I give you now,"—this being a £10 increase—"within so many hours I shall insist upon your taking a lease at £40," thereby doubling his rent. It had been proved, in spite of the Duke of Argyll, that the improvements made by these unfortunate people were such that, in the opinion of a civil engineer who had gone over the property, they could only have been effected at the cost of most extraordinary exertions on the part of the tenants. The improvements were made on a desolate seashore covered with rocks, and, in spite of the barrenness of the land, smiling cornfields and crops of potatoes were now to be found on it. But the moment the extra rent was put upon the tenants they stopped making the improvements; and in a letter which had appeared in reply to the statement of the Duke of Argyll, the writer said he had been over the property in question, and he had seen, on the one hand, a field of corn growing fast to ripeness, and within two or three feet of it, on the other hand, a miserable barrenness. The tenant of the land, when questioned upon the subject, had said that he had been stopped in the middle of his improvements by having a lease of this kind forced upon him. It seemed to be a very hard thing that they should leave out of sight the unprotected condition of the tenants of Ireland before 1870, and only redress the grievance which had been caused since that year. It seemed to him that if a man had suffered from a grievance in 1869 he had as much right to have it redressed as if the grievance were inflicted in 1870. He could not understand how they could draw a line in this way, because it was altogether without principle. If the Government could not accept the Amendment, they would do well to make some offer, such as that they made to-day on another question, which was a very fair offer. He had read a good deal of the evidence given before the Bess-borough Commission; but that inquiry was directed, it seemed to him, more or less as to the defects in the Land Act of 1870. He had considered very narrowly what had taken place before 1870, and he had failed to find much in the evidence bearing upon that condition of things. He thought it would be fair to demand this—that if they could establish to the satisfaction of the Government that a sufficient number of cases of harsh leases in Ireland prior to the Act of 1870 existed, the Government should make some inquiry into the matter; that they should promise, as they did in the case of town parks, to make inquiry, and, if necessary, redress the grievance. That was a fair tiling to ask. It might be that in former times landlords dealt fairly with the tenants, and had given them leases on equitable terms; and he did not see why they should claim an ad vantage for the tenants and exclude the landlords from participating in it. He would deal fairly and squarely with both, and would urge the Amendment as much in the interest of the landlord as of the tenant. What they wanted was justice; and he would, therefore, ask the Government not to limit the Amendment to 1870. If they were disposed to limit it at all, he would ask them to adopt 1869 as the limit, for the reason that in that year the landlords knew that the Land Act was about to be passed; and many of them had, no doubt, been tempted to anticipate the measure by forcing from the tenants the best terms they could get. No doubt the landlords, when the Act made its appearance, were very much relieved. They had not expected, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) got into power, that the Act of 1870 would have been of such a mild character. In 1869, many of the landlords insisted upon their tenants taking leases that they dictated, and it was only a moderate demand to ask that the Amendment should go back to 1869.

said, he had taken great interest in this matter, and he believed that there was no question which was looked on with more interest by the Irish people generally than that of leases. He was very glad to have heard such an eloquent description of the state of affairs with regard to leases as they had heard from the Prime Minister; but he thought all the right hon. Gentleman's arguments tended to prove that they ought not to leave out of the remedial provisions of this Bill the case of tenants suffering under very serious disabilities at the present moment, merely because the leases of those tenants were dated previously to 1870. These men would feel their position very much more bitterly when they saw not only tenants from year to year, but tenants who held under leases since the year 1870, helped in the manner that this Bill proposed to assist them. The measure was, no doubt, a very great one, and the Prime Minister had said that they must look to this matter of leases from the point of view, generally, of equity and public policy. Well, as the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had said just now, he could not see the difference between the condition of the tenants on whom leases were forced in 1869 and that of tenants on whom they had been forced since the Act of 1870. No doubt, a great many landlords had insisted upon the tenants accepting their terms in 1869, in anticipation of the Land Act. It was within his personal knowledge that there were many cases of leaseholders in Ireland who had had their leases forced upon them long before 1870, and these were people who were in a much worse condition than those who had accepted unfair leases since 1870, because no one could deny, however the Land Act of 1870 had failed, that it had put the tenants in a better position, with regard to making contracts, than they had been in before. They must bear in mind that not only did the Act of 1870 contain the Compensation Clauses, but that the force of public opinion, consequent upon the passing of the Act of 1870, was considerable, so that the tenants had had a better chance of fighting their battle with the landlords than those who made their contracts before 1870. And there was another case, one which was not very frequent, but of which there were many instances in existence in Ireland; and that was the case of those tenants on whom, or on whose fathers, leases had been forced on account of their action at elections. Such leases had been forced on tenants by Conservative landlords owing to their having identified themselves with the Liberal interest; and he thought it was very hard, seeing that the tenants had stood by the Liberal Party in those days, that the Liberal Party should not stand by them now. He had in his mind the condition of four properties in County Clare, two of them belonging to Lord Leconfield and Sir Augustin Fitzgerald. On both these leases were unknown, yet there was perfect security to the tenants; but, in the immediate neighbourhood, there were two other estates where the tenants held under leases which ought long ago to have been brought before some Court of Equity. The evidence of pressure was so great that no Court of Equity, in such cases as these, would have refused relief. The leases had been accepted simply because the tenants had been subjected to constant nibbling and increases of rent; and everyone knew that the Irish tenant would rather have his rent increased 20 per cent at once than 15 per cent by small increments. These tenants were rack-rented, because they would accept any lease they could get rather than be subjected to these uncertain and unequal increments, and they had also been subjected to a great deal of persecution at election time. He did not wish to delay the passage of the Bill; therefore, he would merely say that, as a matter of public policy and general equity, they ought not to throw over these leaseholders who acquired possession before 1870. It might be said that they were a very small number of people; but, although they might be small in number, they were influential, and he was certain that great agitation would take place and great jealousy would spring up if Parliament left them out in the cold. It would, in fine, be equally inequitable and impolitic to leave these people without relief.

The ground upon which Her Majesty's Government have proceeded in this matter is so simple and clear that I am anxious to explain it at once to the Committee. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) stated that there was no principle in the course we were taking; but I must say that there is clearly a principle laid down in the Bill, and that we are proposing the exception to that principle. In matters of this kind, the general principle is to endeavour to improve the laws that determine the relations between different classes of society, and to deal only with the present and the future. That is the general principle, and it is a princple which, whatever arguments it admits of on abstract grounds, is fully confirmed by the dictates of prudence and long experience. But, in this particular instance, it so happens that in the Act of 1870 we framed a measure in which we gave special opportunities and special inducements of a certain kind. The inducements were intended to be towards the establishment of perfectly free and fair contracts between landlords and tenants, which free contracts should have effect without any sacrifice on the part of the landlords. We gave a qualified fixity of tenure for a number of years. We have evidence, I believe, that in a limited number of cases these limited opportunities have been abused; and on that ground we thought it desirable to give the Court power, on proof of the facts, to put an end to such abuses by quashing the leases. But, first of all, we require a special ground to warrant our going back at all on prior arrangements, and the moment we get beyond that special ground we have nothing to warrant our going further. Beyond that special exception the Government cannot go; and we must, therefore, decline to consider the further extension of the Amendment.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister did not appear to give any reason why they were not able to produce special grounds for breaking leases made prior to those of 1870. It appeared to him (The O'Donoghue) that the Amendment pro- posed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) was based on reason, and on the precedents established by the Bill. The measure was based, in great part, if not altogether, on the recognition of the fact that the Irish tenants had not been free to contract. In a previous discussion, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) had stated that the majority of Irish tenants were not free to contract; in fact, he (The O'Donoghue) thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the overwhelming majority of the Irish tenants were not free in this respect. There was no ground for assuming that while the yearly tenants had not been free to contract leaseholders had been free to do so. Taking the great body of the Irish tenants, he had no hesitation in saying that yearly tenants were as independent as leaseholders, and very often much more so. It was not infrequent in Ireland to see two adjoining farms held by tenants similarly circumstanced and similarly rented, with no other difference between them except that one held by parole agreement and the other by lease. Take the case of two farms rented at £50 a-year, and suppose both of the farms to be rack-rented, he would ask the Committee was it possible to give any satisfactory reason for the passing of a law which would enable one of these tenants to come forward and obtain relief from this rack-rent, and deny the right to the other, who was precisely similarly circumstanced, except that he was a leaseholder? In principle, there was no difference between a parole agreement to pay rent and a written agreement to the same effect. It was impossible to give a satisfactory reason why a man who had contracted, under certain circumstances, to pay rack-rent for a year should be released from the payment of that rent, whilst the man who had been compelled to contract to pay the rack-rent for 30 years was not relieved. It appeared to him that far stronger persons could be adduced for releasing the man who was compelled to pay the rack-rent for the longer period of 30 years. So far as his experience went, he could say that a leaseholder, as a general rule, paid a higher rent than an annual tenant. Formerly, the obtaining of a lease was the only means by which a tenant could, even temporarily, escape from the control of his landlord; and, in order to do that, he took a lease and had to pay heavily for the security he obtained. What was said to him was this—"You are going to be put into a position where for some years your rent cannot be raised, and you must pay for that protection," and an exorbitant rent was charged. In every county of Ireland there were innumerable cases where tenants had been compelled to take leases before 1870, and had been obliged to pay rack-rents, and he failed to see any reason in the world why they should not be allowed to come into the Court and have their rents revised.

said, the extent and nature of the Amendment had been somewhat exaggerated and mis-stated. It appeared to him to lay down no such novel or extraordinary and unprecedented principles as had been stated. It was proposed to confer upon the Land Commission in Ireland, in many respects, similar powers to those at present enjoyed by every Court of Equity in the Kingdom. The proposal was to give to the Land Commission power to do in a simple, expeditious, and cheap fashion that which, he believed, could be done by any Court of Equity in Ireland. What must be proved by the tenant before he could ask the Land Commission to quash a lease? He must prove that the terms, in the opinion of the Court at the time of the acceptance of the lease, were unreasonable and unfair to the occupier, having regard to the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Nay, he must go further and say that the lease was procured by the landlord under a threat of eviction or duress, which in Equity would amount to undue influence. He would ask any hon. Gentleman acquainted with legal matters whether, where a threat of eviction was used, not for a bonâ fide purpose, but as a means of exacting the tenant's signature to an unfair lease, and where the landlord thus unfairly and unduly used such powers as the law vested in him, would not a Court of Equity, on its being proved that the landlord had thus taken advantage of the tenant's necessities to force a contract, at once grant relief? And let him remind the Committee of this—that, in point of fact, in the celebrated case of Lord Aylesford, it was shown that where unfair pressure was used by a money-lender the agreement could be quashed. Under such circumstances, why was the Committee to limit the application of this clause to tenants holding under leases granted since the passing of the Act of 1870? It could not be contended that tenants were free to contract before the passing of the Act of 1870. No Member who had a seat in the House before the passing of the Act of 1870 could stultify himself by saying any such thing. What was the raison d'être of the Act of 1870? It was that the landlords and tenants were not free to contract. Let the Committee look at the past history of Ireland, and at the Evidence produced before the Royal Commissions—the Commissions of Lord Bessborough and the Duke of Richmond. It would be found that it was proved in evidence that what were called "doctored rentals" were prepared for the purpose of sales in the Landed Estates Court. Men were set down as paying a higher rent than that which, in point of fact, the landlord was in the habit of receiving. The hon. and gallant Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst) had, over and over again, brought forward an instance of that character. Considering, then, the true nature and effect of this clause, Her Majesty's Government ought not to insist upon any limitation of that character. They had already listened to the remarkable speech of the Prime Minister, in which he so eloquently and clearly stated his reasons for conferring on those tenants who now hold by lease the privilege, at its termination, of becoming present tenants with the rights incident to that class of tenancy. Under those circumstances, why limit this clause as proposed? All tenants ought to be entitled to invoke the aid of the equitable powers conferred by this clause on the Land Commission. Why should they, by any words, limit these to cases since the passing of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870? Evidence had been given before both the Bessborough and the Richmond Commissions, giving instances of the greatest hardships perpetrated upon the tenant before the passing of the Land Act of 1870. Let them see whether the case of the tenants of the Land Act of 1870 was not rather stronger than the case of the tenants since the Land Act of 1870. Some hon. Members had spoken as if all leases in Ireland had been solemn contracts entered into under seal after due preparation and consideration on the part of the tenant. But let him remind the Committee that a great distinction existed in this matter between England and Ireland. Under the Act of 1860, any agreement in writing constituted a lease, so that if a bailiff went and used pressure on a tenant, and the tenant was induced to put his hand unawares to any document prepared by the bailiff, that constituted a lease just as good as if it were prepared by an eminent solicitor and explained to, and understood by, the tenant, and signed and sealed by him. The Act of 1860 declared expressly that any agreement in writing was to be held to have the force and effect of a lease. Those were the express provisions of the Act. Viewing how easily leases might be procured in Ireland, he rather thought that that matter was cleared away by the wonderful speech with which the Prime Minister had favoured them that day. The mere attaching the name to any informal document constituted a contract in the nature of a lease under the Act of 1860, and became binding. That, in itself, opened the door to fraud and abuses. The ignorance and helpless condition of the tenants left them very liable to the exercise of undue influence on the part of landlords. It might be said the recommendation in the Bessborough Commission was only in respect of laws made since 1870. But if they looked at the meaning, at the intent, which was not very accurately expressed through portions of the Bessborough Commission in respect of the matter, they would see that the Commissioners, if they intended to give the full meaning to the words, which he had no doubt they did, conveyed the impression that all leaseholders should be released from leases that had been obtained by unfair means. He must say that the very dissentient Member of the Bessborough Commission—The O'Conor Don—admitted the principle that, in point of fact, where they conceded the rights of the tenant from year to year, they ought to concede the same rights to the leaseholder. The O'Conor Don showed that the contract from year to year was to surrender the holding on getting notice to quit; and he pointed out that the same right ought to be conceded to the leaseholder as to the tenant from year to year. He trusted that the Committee would adopt this Amendment.

said, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. P. Martin) had once or twice said that every legal Member of the Committee would agree with his exposition of the law, when he laid down that any Court of Equity would do all that was proposed by this section, in respect of the power which it was proposed to confer upon the Commission. He ventured to challenge that position at once. There was no power, so far as he was aware, in any Court of Law or Equity in England or Ireland to set aside a lease that had been executed as between landlord and tenant, on the ground that it had been signed by the tenant under a threat of the landlord in the exercise of his legal rights. That was the test of the matter. If a threat of eviction were to prevent the exercise of the legal right of the landlord, then the lease was against those legal rights. If a lease was a thing which any Court of Law in England or Ireland could set aside, and if it were true that a Court of Equity could do that, then there was no occasion to burden the Commissioners, who were charged with many duties, with this, when it could be done by any Law Court in the Kingdom. He was glad to see that this mischievous proposal was to be limited upon the lines that the Government laid down. There was no ground for saying that any hardship would exist, as had been stated by the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Edward Clarke) had just stated that a Court of Equity would not interfere with the contract of a tenant under a lease simply because the tenant was forced into the contract under a threat of eviction—or, in other words, in exercising his legal rights. That was quite true; but were they to be told that any yearly contract tenancy could be set aside because the tenant was forced into that contract by a threat of eviction? Was not it because the tenants had been compelled to enter into a yearly contract under a threat of eviction, and because they had raised their rents enormously, that the Government came forward with this Bill? They were told that the justification for it was that it set aside freedom of contract. But there was no freedom of contract between landlord and tenant in Ireland; and for that reason the contract should be set aside. The Prime Minister had told them that it would not be prudent to legislate upon past transactions. That was very well. The contract that was made 50 years ago was said to be a continuous contract, although it was made before the now state of things had arisen under the Land Act of 1870, or under the Bill now before the Committee. Therefore, the defence was simply that this contract under a deed was more solemn than an ordinary tenancy. But if a tenant contracted verbally to pay £40 for a holding, and to go out on receipt of six months' notice, surely he was as much bound by it as if he had entered into a contract under seal. They did not say that the leaseholder should go into a Court to fix his rent; but what they asked was this—that since they were now going to enable a yearly tenant, notwithstanding his contract, to pay a certain rent, to go into the Court to pay a very much lower rent than he contracted to pay, they should allow the leaseholder, if he could show to the satisfaction of the Court that he was forced into the contract in the same way as the yearly tenant was, he thought it would be inequitable and unjust not to allow him to have the judgment of the Court. They did not propose that every leaseholder should go in and claim; but if a leaseholder could show that the lease was forced upon him, and that during the time he had the lease inequitable and unjust terms were imposed upon him, he (Mr. Leamy) submitted that such a one was entitled to receive the judgment of the Commission.

I was a good deal surprised that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had moved this Amendment, especially after the very favourable opinion he had expressed on the Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, and I was still more surprised that hon. Members from Ireland should think it necessary to continue the discussion in favour of the Amendment on the Amendment after the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It was known to hon. Members opposite, and to the hon. and learned Member (Mr. P. Martin), who had made rather a long speech on this matter, that there had been many suggestions from hon. Members from Ireland during this discussion with respect to this very question; and they themselves had proposed that what was done should be limited by the year 1870. Now, when we look into those Amendments, we find that there is an Amendment by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) in which he speaks of leaseholders holding lands since 1870, and they may apply to the Court. Then we come down the same column, and the hon. Member for Kilkenny County (Mr. Marum), who is a great friend of this Bill, also there speaks of existing leases which shall have been executed after the passing of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870. Then, over a leaf, my worthy and hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) also proposes an Amendment—

"Provided the Court, on being applied to by the tenant, shall not have reason to judge that the tenant of such a tenancy, if created after the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act of 1870."

Now, besides these Amendments, if I am not mistaken, there have been references made by several hon. Members on that side of the Committee; and, therefore, it is quite clear that what was dwelling in the minds of hon. Members before this Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland was put on the Paper was that the Government should do that which my right hon. and learned Friend now proposes to do. Having made that proposition, surely it is a very unwise thing to continue a discussion upon a proposition which they must know was based upon their former proposition; and after the speech of the Prime Minister they must know also that it cannot possibly be accepted. Further, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) is here ready to deliver, no doubt, a strong speech against this clause altogether. He is not going to trifle with it; but he is going to deliver a very powerful charge against this clause altogether. Would it not be better, then, if the Irish Members, who are friends of this Amendment, did not obstruct—if they did not discuss what they know to be impossible, and prevent the coming on of the attack, to which the clause itself must be subjected, and then they will have great liberty to answer the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Now, I am only making this proposition as a matter of tactics. If I were an Irish Member, and in favour of this clause, I should blame my fellow-Members if they took up the time of the Committee in discussing what they knew would be defeated, and what they themselves did not originally propose, and wasted their strength and the time of the House upon it, instead of allowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to come on with his speech, and then take the opportunity of absolutely crushing him, which, no doubt, they will, with the assistance of the Government and the hon. Gentlemen on the other side. And then, in the course of the evening, we should divide upon this Amendment. That is the way really for the Business to get on. I will only make one observation more, and that is, that it appears to me that I do not know whether the progress of the Bill, in the course of this discussion, has been hindered more by its friends than by its enemies. When its friends see a good thing in their grasp, if they would take it and not talk so much about it, we should get on better.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Bright) is rather hard upon his Friends, when he says that they refuse it when they see a good thing within their grasp. That is exactly what it means. They, however, did not see their way in this direction, and they put down moderate Amendments in order to get what could be got in the way of opening leases made since 1870. But then, when the Government have come forward, and taken up the whole ground, the natural consequence has followed that the Irish Members, or some of them, have opened their mouths a little wider, and they have said that "when good things are going we will see what we can get of them." And the Government have put their foot down and said—"No; we will not go any further," because in matters of this sort they legislated only for the present and future, with the sole exception of the Act of 1870. All I can make out is, that the Act of 1870 was a child of their own; and, therefore, they thought they could take great liberties with it, and on that ground they proposed an Amendment which, when we come to discuss it as a whole, we shall point out to them that if they are at liberty with regard to what has taken place since 1870, why it would be im- moral in previous times, when, perhaps, such a plausible case could not be made as at present. I hope that this discussion will not go any further after the plain language used by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was surprised because his (Mr. Parnell's) hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) approved as he did of the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and wished to have it extended to leases entered into before the passing of the Act of 1870. Well, he (Mr. Parnell) thought that it was very natural that his hon. Friend approving of the Amendment in regard to leases which had been entered into since 1870 should wish still further to improve it, and apply it to previous leases. He did not think that there was any matter of surprise, from that point of view, that the hon. Member should desire to have this extension. And then the right hon. Gentleman rather chided the Irish Members because the Amendments which had been put on the Paper some two months ago with regard to the leases were, with only one exception, confined to leases which had been executed since 1870, and he intimated that it was very unreasonable of the Irish Members to change their minds. But he (Mr. Parnell) thought in politics, if a politician set out with the principle that he was never going to change his mind, he would not find himself a very successful one. The reason they had changed their minds was not because the Government had given them what they originally asked for; but rather because, in the interval that had been allowed to elapse, they had got such overwhelming evidence of the injustice of the leases previous to 1870, that they thought it right to lay the case before the Government, and to ask them to extend their beneficial provisions to such cases. What were the facts of the case? He did not think that the leases executed before 1870 were, on the whole, as bad as those executed since 1870; but there could be no doubt at all that they were very bad. He had taken the trouble to collect 41 leases which had been executed previous to 1870, and he had had them tabulated, and he found that the average rental amounted to £1,591, or £1,600 in round numbers, and the average Poor Law valuation amounted to £1,000, showing an average rental in these 41 cases of 62 per cent over the Poor Law valuation. Everybody who was conversant with agricultural matters in Ireland would admit that, as a rule—and those cases were selected at haphazard from all parts of Ireland, and were not in any way picked out—50 per cent over the Poor Law valuation was undoubtedly a rack rent, and an extreme rent; and they should hope that the Bill of the Government, and the 7th clause of the Government, would reduce the rents of the tenants occupying holdings to considerably below that figure. In that case, if this hardship existed, what reason was there why these people should continue to pay this excessive rack rent? The Prime Minister, with that wonderful ingenuity which so distinguished him, said that this was owing to the Land Act of 1870 being passed. But it seemed to him (Mr. Parnell) that the Land Act of 1870, having been passed meanwhile, was rather an argument in their favour; because those tenants who were forced into these leases before the Land Act of 1870 had not even the protection of that Land Act to enable them to withstand the exorbitant demands made by the landlord. Now, let him give very shortly—because he recognized the desirability of shortening the discussion—instances of the way in which those leases were forced upon the tenants. In 1875 he found that there were 11 cases in which the leases were forced upon the tenants, and accepted by them under a threat of eviction in four days. Then, again, in 1876, there were two leases which were forced upon tenants under a threat of eviction; and again, in 1877, he had cases of leases which were forced upon the tenant to deprive him of the expected benefits of the Land Act of 1870. People at that time were talking about some legislation in hopes and expectation of the agitation in Ireland being successful, and the landlord took advantage of it and forced those cases on. Then, again, he had three cases of leases which were accepted under the penalty of having the rent doubled, the rent in these cases being raised 50 per cent higher because they took leases. He did not say for a moment that the cases of hardship were very numerous previous to the Act of 1870. [Mr. CARTWRIGHT: For what terms were these cases?] They were for 31 years, and there was a considerable penalty attached to them. He did not mean to contend that there had been so many cases before 1870 as there had been since. In saying that, he admitted that he was making an admission which went, to some extent, againt the case he was desirous of making clear to the Committee. He had received returns relating to something like as many as 350 other leases which were forced upon tenants since the Act of 1870, and he had found that there were 41 cases in which leases had been forced upon tenants before the passing of the Act of 1870, and 350 since that Act came into force. He would therefore ask the Prime Minister whether, as the matter involved was not of very large importance, the number of leases being comparatively few, there was any reason for opposing the Amendment before the Committee? He saw no reason why tenants who held leases which were dated before the year 1870 should be debarred from the beneficial provisions accorded, or proposed to be accorded, by the present Bill, which would, in a large degree, remedy the grievance of which they now complained as having suffered since the passing of the Land Bill of 1870. He thought it would be a politic act on the part of the Government to have mercy on those tenants who, owing to no fault of their own, when they were unprotected by the law, and when no measure of justice or mercy had been extended to them by that House, were compelled to take leases on the terms of which he was then complaining. He could not help thinking—and he was sorry to be compelled to the thought—that there were in the Committee a considerable section of hon. Members who would oppose the Amendment that had been proposed, notwithstanding the fact that it would, if passed, remove from the minds of many among the Irish tenants a burning and rankling sense of injustice.

said, he had hailed with pleasure the fact that the Notice Paper bore the Notice of Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, which went as far as ever he anti- cipated the Government would see their way to go. Let him say, however, that he wished his hon. Friend's (Mr. Healy's) words in reference to this particular branch of the question were not to be misunderstood, in that they were wishing to push back a little further the date of leases which should be affected by the Act. The course of action which had been taken reminded him somewhat of the observation of Charles II., who, speaking of one of his courtiers, said that if he had presented to him the whole of Ireland as an estate, he would want the Isle of Man as a cabbage garden. There was, he must confess, an appearance of something of the kind in some of the proposals which had been made by his hon. Friends; but behind that action on the part of his hon. Friends there was the daily receipt by hon. Members at the Post Office in the Lobby of the House of bundles of leases sent by tenants who wished to show the harshness of the treatment to which they were subjected prior to the passing of the Act of 1870, and he must confess that he had been simply astounded by the revelations contained in those documents. It was impossible for hon. Members who took an interest in the subject to hear of these cases without a desire to induce the Government to throw a shield over the men who had suffered the injustice to which he referred. At the same time, he could understand the Government asking themselves whether there were sufficient reasons for looking for a signal post behind the year 1870. There was nothing, as far as he could see, to give a reason for marking the period of a starting point anterior to the passing of the Act of 1870, unless it was contended that if they were to go back behind the year 1870 they should stop at any particular period, and not subject all the leases in Ireland to review. He had reasoned the matter out for himself, and had come to the conclusion that to submit all leases in Ireland—good and bad alike—would only have the effect of causing a great outcry among the leaseholders themselves. Therefore, while he was sorry to differ on this or any other subject from the Friends with whom he generally acted, he could only say that, in his view, the Government had met them very fairly. The only definite opinion to which he came on the occasion of the first reading of the Bill was that the Government would defeat the equities of the Land Act of 1870; and the substance of the present proposal was that the present Bill should not go behind the leases granted since the passing of that Act, but should include them. This was an intelligible proposal, and one which, with an ardent desire to promote in every way the interests of the Irish tenants, he could not but hope would find acceptance in the eyes of his hon. Friends. Of course, while saying this, he wished for more than the Bill proposed to give; and he would, therefore, suggest that if the Government would not give all that his hon. Friends demanded, they should be content with a revision of the leases which were forced upon the tenants by their landlords just before, and in view of, the passing of the Land Act of 1870, so as to defeat and checkmate its beneficent proposals.

wished the Committee to reflect upon what would be the effect of this proposal on the action that might be taken in "another place" in the event of its being carried. He feared that if the Amendment were accepted the clause would be struck out altogether when the Bill reached the House of Lords.

said, as no such proposal had been made as that all-existing leases in Ireland should be broken or revised, he saw no force or foundation in fact in the suggestion of the quondam tenant farmers' Friend who had just addressed the Committee. The Committee had already departed from the only stand-point on which could be based any valid objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). In an eloquent speech, the Prime Minister had, practically, conferred upon existing leaseholders the right, as far as future tenancies were concerned, to avail themselves of the benefits of this Act; and all that the hon. Member for Wexford asked was that if injustice perpetrated after the year 1870 was to be redressed, the injustice inflicted before that year should also be similarly treated. He (Mr. Callan) had seen a letter from a tenant, and also a copy of the lease under which that tenant held before the passing of the Act of 1870. In his letter, the tenant said that before the Act came into operation he had a new lease forced upon him, and the threat held out to him to induce or compel him to accept such lease was, that if he did not so accept his tenancy would be terminated at the end of the one then running. The majority of tenants in the best parts of Ireland were leaseholders before the year 1870; and why, he asked, were they to be shut out from the benefits of this Act? It was all very well to say that the Act should only be used for the purpose—as far as this branch of the subject was concerned—of repairing injustice committed since 1870; but, surely, if the injustice had been inflicted earlier than that year, the injured person had primâ facie a stronger ground for reparation in some form or another.

, in supporting the Amendment, said, he had himself received copies of a number of leases forced upon tenants by their landlords, in each of which there was a covenant to the effect that at the termination of the tenancy no claim was to be set up for any improvements made on the holding, and that such improvements, if any, were to become the property of the landlord.

proposed in the same Amendment, before the word "procured," the insertion of the word "unfairly," and said, he only proposed the Amendment in order to make more clear what he took to be the obvious intention of the Government.

said, he could not agree to the Amendment, in that it was unnecessary, because a lease obtained unfairly could not be included in the provisions of the Bill.

moved, in the same Amendment, in line 6, to leave out the words "or undue influence," in order to insert the words "and under circumstances which a Court of Equity would hold to be sufficient to set aside a deed." The right hon. and learned Gentleman said his proposal ran on all fours with a statement made by the Prime Minister, on the 30th of June, to the effect that in cases where tenants had presented to them the alternatives of lease or eviction—

"The question may arise whether relief ought not to be afforded to those leaseholders justly and upon the strictest principles of equity by enabling them to go into Court and have a fair rent fixed—by enabling them to have the lease quashed, as it would be quashed in a Court of Law."

[Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] He (Mr. Gibson) could only say that it was The Times report which he held in his hand. If the Government declined to accept his Amendment, they were in the position of seeking to set aside leases in circumstances which a Court of Equity would not hold sufficient for the setting aside of a deed. He thought it right to guard himself by saying that his Amendment would only improve the drafting, and would not relieve the clause from its original vice.

said, the Government could not accept this Amendment, and for these reasons. The jurisdiction proposed to be set up differed from that of a Court of Equity, and was, at the same time, more extensive. If this had not been so the clause would have been useless.

said, the Committee had just heard a very remarkable declaration on behalf of the Government to the effect that the Court created under the Bill would have power to interfere between landlords and tenants in cases where the ordinary Courts of Equity would have no power. This was a rather startling doctrine, and he thought the Committee had a right to ask by what rules, if any, the Court was to be governed. As it seemed to him, this Court was to be armed with new powers, undirected by any principles of law, or, for that matter, equity either, but commissioned to do a sort of rough justice between the parties coming before it. In order that the question might be considered, he would move to insert words providing that the Land Commission "may make such order as a court of equity would make in the like circumstances." He was not in the least tied to any particular form of words, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would be able to suggest other words fitter for the purpose.

said, he could not see any difference between the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman and the one which the Committee had just negatived.

asked what prospect there was that when the new equity was got it would be administered upon known principles?

said, that if a new equity was created, it must be administered according to the old principles.

explained that the object of the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was to provide that the order should be made in accordance with the known rules of equity. The Amendment was intended to deal with the circumstances under which the order was to be made; and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General argued that it must be administered according to the old rules of equity, while his right hon. Friend proposed that judgment should be given according to existing rules.

said, the construction put upon the Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was that it admitted the fact that there was a new equity created and a new power conferred on the Court; but that the Court must exercise it according to the known rules. The words were that the Court should "make such order as a court of equity," and not that they should exercise their powers according to the old principles.