, on a point of Order, rose to call attention to the manner in which the Amendments were placed upon the Paper. They were down in all manner of places. It would be utterly impossible for anyone to follow the proceedings from the Paper, so as to know what the Government intended to do. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in what order the Amendments would be taken?

, in reply, said, that, according to the general rule, new clauses were taken first, and first among those would come the Government clauses. The Clerks at the Table had arranged the Amendments in their proper order on the Paper up to a certain point in the Bill—a point which, he feared, it would be some time before they reached. The others would be put down in order as they were reached.

said, not more than half the Amendments appeared on the Paper.

All the Amendments that have been given in are printed on the Paper this morning, but not in their right places. A certain number of Amendments, with reference to the early clauses of the Bill, have been put down in their right places; and the House will, no doubt, deal with them first.

said, it would be convenient to know whether, after the now clauses had been disposed of, if a new clause, which was not on the Paper, were proposed, it would be competent for the House to deal with it before the other Amendments?

I have to inform the right hon. Baronet that the House does not deal with new clauses without Notice on Report.

moved, in page 26, after Clause 42, insert the following Clause:—

asked, whether the Courts would sit in Dublin?

, in reply, said, that he could not say. It would depend on circumstances.

said, he wished to say one word. Of course, he agreed with the insertion of the clause, for it was necessary that the authority sought by it should be given; but he wished to know whether the Government had fully considered the case of all those officers of the Civil Bill Courts whose duties would be largely increased under this Bill in regard to a proportionate increase of their salaries, in order to see that they were not prejudiced as regarded their rights? In referring to the subject, he was aware that the claims of one class of officers had been dealt with fairly; but he did not know that the Government had taken the power to themselves by any Amendment in the Bill to deal with the other officers in the way of increase of salary. He was quite sure the First Lord of the Treasury would take care that if any increase of work had to be undertaken by those officers, their claims would be fully considered, and dealt with in the Estimate.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had distinctly pointed out the proper mode of procedure if such cases arose; it would, therefore, be unnecessary to provide in the Bill for such cases. Each case would be amply considered, as regarded its own circumstances, in the Estimates. The character of the appointment and the nature of the duties would be dealt with as they arose, in the way mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but in saying that, he must not be understood to say that wherever there was an increase of duties of public servants there would be a claim for compensation. In such cases the whole claims would be considered.

moved to insert, after Clause 44, a new clause which provided for the appearance of parties before the Court by their relatives, or by a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, but not a solicitor retained as an advocate by such first-mentioned solicitor.

moved, as an Amendment, to leave out the words "but not a solicitor retained as an advocate by such first-mentioned solicitor," as they were entirely unnecessary. He said the point was one that gave rise to considerable discussion when the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Bill was before the House. There was a difference of opinion upon the matter on the part of the professional and non-professional Members, the view held by the latter being that it was quite legitimate that one solicitor should be allowed to ask for the assistance of another as to the conduct of the case, and for the interest of his client. There were many young barristers who had not sufficient knowledge or experience to deal with particular cases, and the services of a local solicitor would be much more valuable in such cases. He would be better qualified, for in most instances he would be found to have the Acts in question at his fingers' ends, and from his local experience he would be better able to take care of his client's interests. It would also save much expense to the suitor, for the services of a barrister brought from Dublin sometimes cost 50 guineas, while an able solicitor would conduct the case equally well at from three to five guineas a-day.

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that the Amendment should be accepted. The limitation was entirely unnecessary, and the clause, as it stood, would impose a heavy expense on suitors in many districts in Ireland. He trusted the Government would accede to the Amendment.

opposed the Amendment, and hoped it would not be agreed to. The matter was very carefully considered in the year 1877 by a Select Committee of the House which had to decide that among other matters; and to adopt the Amendment would be to depart from the course of action then decided upon after full investigation.

supported the Amendment, and said he wished to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Plunket) that the Select Committee he referred to—that upon the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Bill of 1877—agreed to their decision, in the direction of the limitation proposed by the clause, by a majority of 1 only, when he (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) were absent, and had they been present, they would have voted the other way. He thought they ought to provide a simple and cheap method for enabling the tenant who desired to go before the Court to have his case conducted. If counsel was insisted on in every case, they would practically put an inseparable barrier to that being done. The clause was framed in the interest of the junior Bar of Ireland; but he (Mr. Parnell) thought the Bill would benefit the Bar, senior and junior, quite enough, without extending the benefit by the limitation proposed.

said, he spoke disinterestedly and with very great respect for his hon. Friends who sat around him; but he thought the adoption of the Amendment would be contrary to the interests of the tenant farmers.

said, the chief reason for retaining the words was that they appeared in the corresponding section of the Civil Bill Courts Procedure Act. The Civil Bill Court dealt with the same class of cases, and it would be inconvenient to have a different set of rules regulating the practice where the proceedings were of the same class, held in the same Court, and employing the same officers. He desired to point out that any suitor might employ a solicitor to plead, if he choose, before the Land Commission; and really all the words would do would be to prevent a suitor having to pay double fees—to one solicitor for getting up the case, and fees to another who, from his powers of speech, would act as advocate.

supported the Amendment, and considered it would prove of advantage to the suitor. He could see nothing in the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland but the legal desire to make things square. Really, the cases to be brought before the Civil Bill Court and the Land Commission were altogether distinct.

, as a practising solicitor, said he wished to testify to the inconvenience caused by the words of the clause proposed to be retained. The bringing of eminent advocates from a distance generally caused waste of time; and the inconvenience would be met if the suitor was allowed to employ a second solicitor, when he had a large number of witnesses to examine.

said, the object should be to cheapen litigation as much as possible for the suitor. Although he did not think the leaving out of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would have that effect, he thought a solicitor should be empowered to argue the case in the Court, instead of having one solicitor preparing the case and another arguing it.

said, many solicitors would be infinitely preferable to young barristers in cases arising under the Bill; and were they to deprive a tenant of the best advocate he could get, simply because he happened to be a solicitor?

warmly approved of the Amendment. Hitherto, barristers had everything their own way; and, in his opinion, the retention of the words in the clause was intended to preserve the monopoly which the Bar and Bench had heretofore enjoyed.

said, he must press the Amendment to a division, for he thought the Government was much to blame in refusing to accept it.

moved, as a further Amendment, to add, after the word "solicitor," the words "unless with the sanction of the Court." He thought the Government, after accepting his Amendment in Committee, should have no objection to omit these words. The limitation they proposed was not at all in the spirit of his Amendment.

said, he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment. It would be throwing the odium of refusing on the Court, and pressure would be put upon them to grant their sanction. The clause was simply a copy of one in the English County Court Act.

remarked, that if it was the manifest wish of the people that a second solicitor should be employed, the Government should have no objection to accede to it.

said, that the rule in all County Courts was for solicitors to practise, and not barristers. He thought the Government should accept the Amendment.

said, there was very good ground why the Amendment should be accepted.

moved, in page 28, after Clause 45, to insert the following Clause:—

(Disqualification for seat in Parliament.)

"No person being a Member of the Land Commission or an Assistant Commissioner shall, during the time that he holds his office, be capable of being elected a Member of or sitting in the Commons House of Parliament."

moved, in page 13, after Clause 18, insert the following Clause:—

said, there was no jealousy of the clause as tending to a too rapid creation of peasant proprietors; and the only question on which he should have liked to hear the opinion of some one interested in Irish land, or who represented that interest, was the question of the position of the remainder man in or under the clause—whether it was compatible with the practice of the Courts to leave him in the position of a person having a fourth of his interest standing out on second mortgage. For his part, he was inclined to think the clause was in the nature of a blow at limited ownership. He was not objecting to that, provided it was a blow fairly struck. In truth, the upshot of the matter was this. As far as the Government were concerned, they had no prejudice to the clause, provided it was one that was generally recognized by all concerned as equitable in spirit, and to be adopted on the whole in the interests of all parties; but he should be against their placing themselves in the position of having done an injustice to any person by the insertion of such a clause, and, even at that late period, he would wish to leave the ultimate judgment until they had received more light upon the subject.

supported the clause, which he considered a most important one, especially in Ireland, where there was so much of the land held in settlement. This was a question of value, the real question to be determined being the value of the estate. Such matters could be far better decided by the Court which was selling the estate, and knew its value and conditions, the character of the tenants, and all about the security that the land would offer, than by the Court of Chancery. He trusted the clause would be adopted in one form or another, as he thought it would be a boon to the small farmers, if it could be worked fairly to the remainder man. The power was to be exercised by the limited owner only with the sanction of the Court, and it might, perhaps, be provided that the Court should have regard to the interests of the remainder man. The curse of Ireland was limited ownership heavily incumbered.

, speaking as a landlord, hoped the clause would be accepted by the Government in some form. Four-fifths of the estates in Ireland were held under limited ownership; and if no such provision were inserted in the Bill, the good effect of the Purchase Clauses would be much curtailed. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) as to the evil of limited ownerships.

said, that, while anxious to meet any great public want, in common with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he saw great difficulties in carrying out the clause as now framed if it were added to the Bill. He would have been glad if it had been presented in Committee, so that it could have been discussed in a more conversational manner, for the object of the clause was a good one. It provided that the limited owner should practically be treated as if he were the absolute owner, and that was a serious provision, as it practically left but little discretion to the Court. Then, again, the interest of minors would be prejudicially affected, from the fact that the Government would have a first charge to the extent of three-fourths of the purchase money, leaving the security for charges for minor children very small indeed. He would gladly consider any clause which would give facilities to tenants to purchase their holdings on conditions which would be fair to all parties; but that object could hardly be attained by the clause of his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Shea). He objected to its being added to the Bill in its present shape; and, in fact, should have criticized its being read a second time if it had not been for the fact that his attention was taken off the discussion until the clause had passed the second reading.

said, he was glad the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) was favourable to the object of the clause. But there was certainly a difficulty about it as it stood, and he would see if by any amendment of the Bill, he could overcome it.

thought it better for a matter of this kind to be dealt with by subsequent legislation, altogether independent of the Bill, as it would be throwing an amount of extra work on the Land Commission, and he would, therefore, suggest that the clause should be withdrawn.

said, he would withdraw his clause.

said, that the next clause on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Lincolnshire, proposed to be inserted after Clause 7, providing that the Commission should be enabled to purchase encumbered estates where the judicial rent was less than the public charges, was out of Order. It involved a money charge upon the people, and could not he proposed without the sanction of a Committee of the House.

moved, in page 15, after Clause 20, insert the following Clauses:—

said, he could not accept the clauses, for he did not see how they could put the tenant into a different position in this respect, merely because he had applied to purchase his holding.

said, that the next clause on the Paper, standing in the name of Mr. Parnell, proposed to be inserted after Clause 26, and providing for the reclamation and improvement of waste land, was out of Order, for the same reason that applied to the former one proposed by Mr. Chaplin.

proposed to omit from sub-section 3 the words "or in the event of disagreement may be ascertained by the Court to be the true value thereof." The preceding words of the section were—

"On receiving such notice the landlord may purchase the tenancy for such sum as may be agreed upon."

said, if the Government were to modify in any manner this principle of pre-emption, as laid down in the clause, which had been so fully discussed and approved of by an enormous majority of the House, they should be opening the entire Bill to re-discussion without the slightest prospect of arriving at a more satisfactory conclusion. When he remembered the feeling, almost of despair, with which the Government had viewed the question whether they would ever get through the clause in Committee, and the relief they felt when they did get through it, he could only express a hope that the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) would not subject them to a repetition of that dreary experience. He should look upon the acceptance of the Amendment as a distinct breach of faith on the part of the Government.

said, the matter had been decided by the Committee; and, although he regretted the decision which had been arrived at, yet he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.

said, he could not accept the Amendment.

moved, in page 1, line 24, insert as a new sub-section:—

(5.) If the tenant fails to give the landlord the notice or information required by the foregoing sub-sections, the Court may, if it think fit, declare the sale to be void."

Alter the numbers of subsequent sub-sections.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that inconvenience would arise if the tenant who was going to sell his interest did not give notice to the landlord. In case of sale the landlord, as at present provided, would have the right to proceed to the Court of Chancery and get the sale set aside; but, by this sub-section, it was proposed that the Court, under the Bill, should have the power now possessed by the Court of Chancery.

said, that in order to redeem a promise made in Committee, he would move the deletion of the 7th sub-section, and the substitution of one providing for the apportionment by the Court of the purchase money as between the tenancy and the landlord's property in improvements executed by him solely or jointly with the tenant; and that such improvements so sold shall be deemed to have been made by the purchaser of the tenancy.

pointed out several objections to the paragraph.

said, he could assure the hon. Member that his objections were only imaginary. Where the landlord and the tenant agreed that the landlord's improvements should be sold to an incoming tenant, so that they might be dealt with in the same way as if they were the tenant's improvements, then the Court, out of the purchase-money, would apportion to the landlord such sum as represented his property in the improvements as distinguished from the tenant's interest in the holding.

said, it would be necessary for the protection of the tenants that the Court should on their behalf make the inquiries requisite.

said, he did not see what protection the tenants required. It was provided that the landlord should receive compensation for his improvements out of the purchase-money. This, of course, would be borne in mind at the time the sale took place.

said, he thought the landlord who had made improvements and laid out his capital upon them was somewhat prejudiced by this proposal.

proposed an Amendment omitting certain words.

moved an Amendment to the effect that the provisions of the clause should not be deemed to apply to unreclaimed moorland, to town parks, or to demesne lands which might have been temporarily let. He laid most stress on the moorland, because he knew that a great deal of moorland was held from year to year for grazing purposes; but it had been mixed up with other holdings which, under the Bill, would become the property of the tenant absolutely.

said, he had no objection to the Amendment so far as it applied to town parks or demesne lands; but as regarded unreclaimed moorland, there was nothing in the objection of the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine. If unreclaimed moorland was part of the holding, then it was clear that it would be subject to the provisions of the clause; if it was not part of the holding, it would not come under the operation of the clause.

proposed, as an Amendment, that the clause should not apply to ordinary tenancies. He wished to have some understanding from the Government, as to whether all the restrictions on the right of free sale were to apply to the tenants who did not get the benefit of the Bill.

, in objecting to the Amendment, said, that it would not be favourable to the tenant. It was the intention of the Government that the clause should apply to all ordinary tenancies—those from year to year, as well as others. The ordinary tenant from year to year still retained his Common Law right of assignment, seriously affected no doubt as that was by the right of the landlord to refuse to accept the incoming tenant, a right which in its turn was tempered by the right of the tenant to compensation for improvements. This clause gave the tenant the right of forcing the purchaser of the farm on the landlord, if the latter could not give any substantial reason for refusing him. That, he considered, was a very considerable concession to the tenants, and, for that reason, he could not accept the Amendment, as, in his opinion, it was unnecessary.

, in withdrawing the Amendment, said it was quite true that the clause gave the right of assignment to the tenant; but it was of no use to him, as the landlord might serve his successor with notice to quit also.

said, that in order to carry out an understanding which had been come to in Committee, he would move, in page 3, line 33, after "estate," to insert—

"Then, if his personal representatives serve notice on the landlord nominating some one of the legatees or next of kin to succeed to the tenancy, such person shall have the same claim to be accepted by the landlord as if the tenancy had been sold to him by the testator or intestate, and in default of such notice."

The Amendment was introduced with a view to giving the legatees of the deceased the power of presenting a single tenant to the landlord, and preventing the necessity of a sale.

moved an Amendment, in page 4, line 3, the object of which was to enlarge the operation of the clause in facilitating agreements between the landlord and the tenant outside the Court, in order to diminish expense and prevent litigation between the parties concerned.

said, he quite saw the object of the noble Lord, and should be disposed to assist him in attaining it; but he was afraid that the attempt to do so by this Amendment would throw the Bill out of gear.

supported the Amendment as one that would diminish litigation.

said, that perhaps the object might be attained without inconvenience by an addition to the clause.

said, he would consult with the noble Lord as to acting on the suggestion.

moved an Amendment, the object of which was to render the landlord liable for the expenses attendant upon the sale of a holding where the Court was satisfied that he had forced the tenant to such sale by demanding an unfair rent.

said, the words now proposed might enable the Court to award costs and expenses wholly independent of the decision upon the fairness of the rent.

proposed, at end of sub-section 3, to add the words "or erect any buildings thereon which are not suitable and necessary for working it properly." His object was to protect the landlords against the erection by tenants of buildings totally unsuitable for a small holding. A landlord should not be compelled to pay for any buildings which were unsuitable or unnecessary to the working of the farm. A man might have two adjoining farms, one of 20 acres and another of 100 acres, and he might erect on the smaller farm buildings quite suitable to the two holdings as a whole, but quite unsuited to the smaller one by itself.

thought the Amendment was not necessary, and preferred to retain the Bill as it stood. A tenant was not likely to lay out money in a way which would risk his chance of obtaining compensation by erecting buildings unsuitable to his holding; and even if he did, other provisions of the Bill would protect the landlord being compelled to pay for any buildings which were not suitable to the holding.

still insisted that the Amendment was necessary.

opposed the Amendment, which he considered would render still more complicated the clause, which was already objectionable on that account.

suggested that the Equities Clause would meet the case. Under that clause the Court would be able to refuse compensation for buildings, to the erection of which the landlord had objected, and which were unsuited to the holding.

said, he must still oppose the Amendment, which he thought quite useless.

proposed to amend the clause by omitting the sub-section which provides that—

"The tenant shall not do any act whereby his tenancy becomes vested in an assignee in bankruptcy."

opposed the Amendment. If a man became a bankrupt his holding must be sold, and it was really not very material whether it was sold by the tenant under pressure from the landlord, or by the assignee in bankruptcy. The question, however, as to the omission of the sub-section had been already largely discussed, and the general opinion was in favour of its retention.

moved the insertion in the clause of words reserving to the landlord the royalties on mines, minerals, and quarries on holdings in possession of tenants, for the statutory term.

said, that the object of the Amendment was already secured by the provision in the clause enabling the landlord to enter on the holding in order to obtain minerals; and as to what were popularly called "royalties," it was doubtful whether, in many cases, they belonged to the landlord at all.

moved an Amendment, in page 5, line 23, after the words, "Hunting, shooting, fishing, or taking game or fish," to omit the words—

"The right of taking which shall belong exclusively to the landlord, subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act 1880."

These words, the hon. Member said, had been inserted in rather a hurried fashion in Committee, it being pointed out that in the case of a statutory tenancy the game should belong to the landlord. That was far too sweeping a provision, and one which they ought not to assent to. The law, as it at present stood, gave the game to the yearly tenant; but where the landlord was in the habit of shooting or fishing himself, or of letting his game to other people, it had been the custom amongst yearly tenants passively to give up the right which they legally possessed. As the Bill at present stood, it provided that a right of taking game should belong exclusively to the landlord. What punishment would be awarded to the tenant if he broke through that provision? There were many cases where the landlord never shot game, and where the tenant thought himself fairly entitled, as undoubtedly he was legally entitled, to shoot the game on his farm; but, by the provision he had read, such a tenant would render himself liable to a penalty if he shot game in future. It was a very stringent provision to enact that in every case where a statutory term had been entered upon, whether the landlord had been in the habit of shooting game or not, that game should henceforth belong to the landlord. That reversed the legal position of the parties, and involved an amendment of the Irish Game Laws, which was entirely outside the object of the Bill.

admitted that, as the law now stood, the tenant in occupation, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, had the right of shooting the game on his farm; but his right in that respect was somewhat precarious, because, being only a tenant from year to year, he was liable to be dispossessed by notice to quit if he insisted on his legal game rights. By the Act of 1870, it was provided that if a tenant was disturbed because he refused to allow the landlord to shoot, fish, or hunt, he should be disentitled to any compensation for disturbance—in other words, the landlord, by means of his power to serve notice to quit, without incurring liability to compensation, practically enjoyed the exclusive right to the game. The Legislature were now introducing a tenure of a more durable character, which would be, in many respects, equivalent to a lease, and they had naturally to consider what should be the rights in respect of game having regard to what a landlord would reserve on an ordinary lease. Unquestionably, he would reserve the right of shooting and fishing. He thought, on the whole, they must adopt some mode of adjusting the matter, without excluding the landlord from rights which substantially he had hitherto enjoyed.

said, he was glad to know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland intended to relieve the tenants of one-of their most obnoxious duties—namely, the prosecution of offenders under the Game Act. Although the game was nominally in the possession of the tenant, he did not think the Amendment should be accepted, for it was always understood that it should be vested in the landlord.

thought the hardworking tenant, who produced the rental, ought to have the right to enjoy all such sports as fishing and hunting equally with the landlord. He certainly thought that such an invidious distinction would have the effect of perpetuating ill-feeling between the two classes. Why was not the tenant to enjoy all the sports of a free man? He should rather desire to see landlords and tenants meeting in the pursuit of such sports. He hoped that the Court constituted by the Bill would be empowered to give con- current rights of sporting to the tenants in the leases settled under its jurisdiction.

said, that having come to the conclusion that his Amendment had too wide a scope, he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw it.

said, that any proposal to curtail the acknowledged rights and privileges of the landlords in Ireland with respect to "game" would be received with a very great amount of criticism. The almost universal practice in Ireland was to reserve in all leases the rights of sporting to the landlord. That being the usage for many years, it had become recognized, and no attempt had ever been made in the slightest degree to interfere with such rights. Now, however, the Bill would render impossible in Ireland the existence of tenancies from year to year, for every tenant from year to year could be changed into a tenant for 15 years, and at the end of that period his tenancy might be continued for other periods of 15 years indefinitely. Therefore, a landlord would have no opportunity of stepping in and regulating his rights of property unless the right of so doing were now reserved to him. He trusted the House would not agree to any Amendment having as wide a scope as that of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). If any attempt were made in that direction, it should at once be rejected.

said, it was quite true that there were a great many large properties on which these rights were reserved to the landlord; but there were also a large number of cases in which there was no such reservation, and where the tenants had also concurrent rights at that moment.

said, he would propose an Amendment providing that, as between landlord and tenant, hunting, shooting, fishing, or taking game, salmon, or sea trout should belong exclusively to the landlord. It would be very hard, for instance, to prevent a man from catching an eel.

objected to the Amendment, on the ground that landlords had never yet enjoyed an exclusive statutory right of shooting and taking game.

also objected to the Amendment, and thought it too sweeping in giving the landlord the exclusive right of taking fish and game during the continuance of the statutory term. Might the case not be met by the insertion of some terms to the effect that "If the landlord, when the statutory term is being granted, require this right to be reserved?" There were many cases where the landlord did not trouble himself about the game and fish.

said, he had no objection to that Amendment of the proposed Amendment.

suggested that the word "sea" should be left out, as the fresh water rivers contained in many places very valuable trout.

said, his Amendment to the proposed Amendment would come in more appropriately later on.

explained that the reason why sea trout were proposed to be reserved to the landlord conclusively was, because they were very valuable, whereas a concurrent right, he thought, would be sufficient with respect to ordinary trout.

thought the wording of the clause with these Amendments would be clumsy and redundant.

thought that eels also should belong exclusively to the landlord.

supported the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham). The Amendment meant a most extensive change in the clause as it stood before the Committee. The effect of the suggestion now before them would really be to destroy for the landlord the fishing of some of the most enjoyable trout streams in the country. He thought that the Bill did not actually purport to take away from the landlord anything of his amenities; but this Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would most certainly do so, for the right of fishing was generally looked upon as one of the greatest he possessed. If the exclusive right to take trout were taken from the landlords, many of them would be robbed of the greatest pleasure they had enjoyed in their estates. He suggested that the clause should read so as to give the landlord the exclusive right of shooting and taking game, and the right of fishing and taking fish.

thought that the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was a good one, and that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would complicate the clause, and tend to make it unintelligible.

opposed the Amendment.

thought the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland's proposal a serious one, which required further consideration. Such an Amendment as that might have a very serious effect upon those who wished to remain resident upon their properties. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to let the clause remain as it was.

thought it would be far more satisfactory to let the clause stand as it was, without the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The right of fishing was not only a marketable commodity, but it was a very valuable one. Indeed, he (Viscount Folkestone) should not be surprised that during the last few years, in many cases where landlords had not been able to get their rents from the tenants, or had had the greatest difficulty in doing so, they had had to be almost entirely dependent upon their rights of fishing for the means of a livelihood.

hoped that his right hon. and learned Friend would give way. It was remarkable that so few quarrels between landlord and tenant took place about game. The tenants were satisfied as things now stood; and he believed the proposal, if adopted, would introduce a new cause of dispute between tenant and landlord.

said, the clause might be so left that the right of shooting, fishing, &c., should belong exclusively to the landlord where he required it at the commencement of the tenancy.

said, that in many parts of Ireland, as was well known, large numbers of inns had been built upon the banks of the streams where fishing could be obtained, and these were yearly visited by many English and other tourists. These places were of great advantage to the country in many ways, and they would be entirely destroyed were the fishing right of the landlord abolished.

suggested that matters might be simplified by leaving the right discretionary to the Court.

said, he thought to introduce the jurisdiction of the Court into the settlement of such an exceedingly small matter with respect to the taking of fish was quite unnecessary. He thought they might as well leave it to be settled between landlord and tenant. What he proposed was, that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that the words "taking game or fish" should be read apart. Then his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland would propose to move—

"And as between the landlord and tenant, the right of shooting and taking game, and of fishing and taking fish, shall belong exclusively to the landlord, subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act, 1880."

That, he thought, would carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that there was no fish in the Ground Game Act.

said, he must refer the hon. Member to the terms of the Amendment. It would be subject to the provisions of the Act as far as they applied.

complained that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had added words which the Prime Minister had not mentioned. He begged to move to omit those words.

said, the words used in the Amendment would meet the case best.

said, he would remind the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Thomas Acland) that the Bill had proposed to give the Irish landlords game rights which they did not now possess.

moved, in sub-section 6, to omit the words "without the consent of the landlord." He said that during the discussion of the clause in Committee the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) described the public-houses in many of the rural districts of Ireland as being centres of drunkenness and ruin; and as the object of the Bill was to attempt to make some improvement in the wretched condition of large numbers of the people, he did not think that the opening of new public-houses should be under the control of the landlord. If public-houses were good, they ought not to be prohibited; if they were bad, their establishment ought not to be dependent upon such a contingency.

said, he wished to remind the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) that the point under consideration did not involve the question of so-called temperance at all, but of the landlord's rights; and he did not think the occasion was one on which the eccentric ideas entertained on the subject by the hon. Member for Carlisle had any connection with the matter under discussion. The hon. Baronet had no right to assume that on the Opposition side of the House his opinions on the subject were in any degree shared. He (Mr. Warton) should support the sub-section as it stood.

said, he could not accept the Amendment, which had no value at all in the direction aimed at by the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson).

dissented from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. He should support the hon. Baronet if he proceeded to a division.

said, that though he generally supported his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) he could not do so on this occasion. He would have had great pleasure in supporting a prohibitory Liquor Bill for Ire- land, if the hon. Baronet had brought it forward; but he objected to dealing with the liquor traffic under the guise of a Land Bill, and he would advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

opposed the Amendment, observing that it was a monstrous attempt to turn the Land Bill into a Liquor Bill.

moved the insertion of a provision in the clause, in order to include among the reasonable purposes permitting resumption of the holding, the making of grants or leases of sites for churches or other places of religious worship, schools, dispensaries, or clergymen and schoolmasters' residences.

expressed a hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would include in his Amendment the words "churches, hospitals, and schools," in fulfilment of the pledge given by the Premier in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) on the 2nd of July last. He (Mr. Warton) made at the time a note of the promise in the following terms:—"W. E. G.'s promise to Gorst. Schools, churches, and hospitals."

said, in that case, he would propose that the Amendment should run thus:—

"Or for the purpose of making grants or leases of sites for churches or other places of religious worship, schools, dispensaries, or clergymen's or schoolmasters' residences."

commented on the additions to the original proposal, and on their acceptance by the Government. He thought it would be better to leave such matters to the discretion of the Court.

objected to the insertion of the word "dispensaries."

thought the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) always associated dispensaries with the Poor Law system. It was to be hoped, however, that self-supporting dispensaries might be established in Ireland, and might prosper. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant to include in his Amendment every kind of philanthropic purpose, the provision for dispensaries ought not to be omitted.

moved the insertion of the following words:—

"A flax scutching mill shall not he deemed unsuitable to the holding on which it is erected by reason only that it is available for the purposes beyond those of the holding on which it is situate."

The Amendment had been introduced to meet cases in the North of Ireland where small scutching mills had been erected, in which work was often done for other holdings also.

thought the Amendment ought to be made available for mills in general, otherwise the Amendment would practically only apply to Ulster.

said, this was a very serious Amendment, on principle, as it was, in effect, an attempt to go behind and extend the definition of improvement in the Land Act of 1870. The definition then given was, that an improvement was anything which increased the letting value of the holding and was suitable to such holding. But under the terms of the Amendment now proposed a very substantial injustice might possibly be inflicted, for a landlord might be called upon to pay heavy compensation for an utterly unsuitable improvement. The landlord of five acres might be made to pay compensation in respect of a mill large enough to supply the wants of a whole barony or a holding of 1,000 acres. The mill might have been a failure, and the landlord, on resuming possession, might be called upon to recoup to a tenant the losses arising from an unsuccessful commercial speculation. He failed to perceive the equity of the proposal, and thought some few further words ought to be introduced into the Amendment directing the Court to exclude from their consideration any claims made against landlords for extravagant sums expended on machinery in scutching mills. There could be no harm in allowing the tenant to erect a mill at his own expense and handing it over to his successor; but it would not be reasonable or fair to make a landlord who had taken no part in the transaction bear the expense of improvements which might be entirely unsuited to the dimensions of the tenant's holding. The Amendment should, if it were possible, be confined to small scutching mills, or else to those in the Province of Ulster.

submitted that, as the clause was framed, there was no danger in it at all, and that there was no ground for the apprehensions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson). A tenant who could not prove that his improvements were suitable to his holding would be excluded from participating in the benefits conferred by the section of the Bill at present under consideration. As to the suggestion that the operation of the provision should be confined to Ulster, it was true that the number of scutching mills outside Ulster was infinitesimal; but if it was just to introduce this Amendment into the Bill in reference to Ulster, surely it must also be just to extend its application to other parts of Ireland.

said, it was amusing to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman on the Treasury Bench talking about a thing which, it was quite evident, he knew nothing about. There was not, he (Mr. Tottenham) believed, a single holding in Ireland so large that a scutching mill could be suitable to it alone. Every mill of the kind was erected for the use of more holdings than one, and was therefore put up for purposes of profit. If the Amendment were carried it would be quite possible for the tenant of a small quantity of laud to erect one of these mills as a speculation, and, if the flax trade should be unprosperous, to leave the holding and make his landlord pay for his unprofitable speculation.

observed, in answer to the hon. Member (Mr. Tottenham), that there were 1,100 scutching mills. He was of opinion that the Amendment ought to be agreed to, so that small farmers might be encouraged to erect mills on their holdings. If the contrary view should prevail, the flax trade in Ulster would inevitably deteriorate. He cordially supported the Amendment, and deprecated so much discussion on so small a point.

suggested that the application of the Amendment should be limited to Ulster.

said, he could not agree to the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Stanley). The flax industry had already spread beyond Ulster, and if encouraged it might spread to a still greater extent. It would be a hardship to those small farmers who had put up small flax scutching mills for their own benefit, if, because their neighbours got the use of them, it was to be deemed unsuitable.

said, it would be equally unfair to allow a farmer on a very small holding to erect a scutching mill and to give him, the right of calling upon the landlord to pay for its erection. A tenant of his own had erected a mill of this kind, and, finding it unprofitable, had applied to him to take it off his hands.

hoped the right conferred by the Amendment would not be confined to tenants in Ulster. In the South and West of the County of Cork flax was largely grown, and it was also grown in other parts of Ireland. He supported the Amendment, for he held that it was the duty of the Legislature to encourage that industry.

said, that it would be unjust to make the landlord pay compensation to the tenant for a flax mill which was principally valuable for purposes beyond those of the holding. He thought it was only reasonable that a landlord should decline to pay the cost of an enterprize which was simply designed for the benefit of people with whom he might have no connection.

said, that, on the same principle, he could not help thinking it would be equally unjust to prevent a tenant from working a neighbour's flax mill.

urged the Government, before accepting Amendments, to look at their effect over the whole of Ireland, instead of in particular localities. He opposed the Amendment as it stood, on the ground that if an exception to the clause were made in favour of the scutch mills, exceptions should also be made in favour of flour mills and saw mills. A scutch mill was as much a manufactory as a flour mill, and if the Amendment was introduced at all, it should not be made locally applicable to Ulster, but extended to the tuck mills in the West of Ireland.

inquired whether the Amendment was in Order, seeing that a few nights ago an Amendment relating to highways was ruled to be out of Order by the Chairman of Committees.

said, he would remind the noble Viscount that the powers of the House in regard to Amendments were much greater than those of the Committee. It was in the power of the House to deal with the present Amendment as it thought fit.

hoped the Amendment would be accepted, and that a similar provision would be made for the growing woollen trade of Ireland.

moved, in page 7, line 30, after the word "tenancy," to insert the words—

"In a holding rated under the Acts relating to the valuation of property in Ireland at less than one hundred pounds, and."

The noble Lord said, the object of the Amendment was to exclude from the operation of the clause which dealt with judicial rents all tenancies of more than £100 annual value. He did not think it would be possible to show that the Amendment was contrary to the spirit of the Act. If it were, he, for one, would never have proposed it. Nothing could be a greater mistake than to appear to give to the tenants with one hand what was taken away with the other. But there were only 13,000 tenants out of a total of more than 600,000 to whom the Amendment would apply, and besides that, these tenants would not, by the Amendment, be deprived of the right of free sale given in Clause 1. He simply moved it as a question of principle. He wished to point out that his Amendment was not identical, by any means, with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). It would be in the recollection of the House that, at a later stage of the Bill, the Government adopted a very important Amendment with regard to leases. They adopted an Amendment under which the tenants of all leases, irrespective of their duration, irrespective of all value of the holding, at the expiration of the lease would become, not future tenants, but present tenants. It was not his wish to enter into any details of the discussion of that question; but the House could not fail to see how very important a point it was, and it justified him in bringing forward this Amendment, because those leaseholders who were mainly affected by the Amendment adopted at a late stage by the Government were not altogether, without exception, that very large class who were aimed at by his Amendment. It seemed to him an extreme thing to say that a man of large capital who had gone over to Ireland only yesterday from England or Scotland for the purpose of speculating in agriculture should, at the expiration of that term which he, as a pure matter of contract, entered into, be treated exactly in the same manner as some poor cottier tenant in Galway or in Mayo, who, for generations previously, had lived on the soil, had tilled the soil, had built upon it accommodation, whether good or bad, had made whatever improvements were on the soil, and who was the representative of former generations of occupants. If he were asked to describe the Bill in a word, he should say, on the whole, this was a Bill for better or for worse, whether they liked it or not, which established a rude sort of copy-hold tenure in Ireland. Call it fixity of tenure, call it continuity of tenure, call it continuity of occupation, call it durability of tenure, call it whatever they liked, there was no doubt whatever that this Bill in its principles resembled that tenure with which they were familiar as copyhold. He was prepared, so far as it affected small tenants in Ireland, not only to accept the Bill, but to accept it willingly. And he meant to say, further, upon this question, he was not a convert of yesterday. But he had always contended that, with regard to large tenants above a certain amount, be it £50, £100, or £150, they ought to draw a broad distinction between them and small tenants. Small tenants were creatures of custom which the law had not hitherto recognized, but which ought to have been recognized; but large tenants were not creatures of custom, but creatures of contract; and any legislation which was to be durable should proceed, not upon arbitrary lines, but upon a recognition of facts. He believed that he was right in saying that when the late Mr. Butt first occupied himself in drawing up a Land Bill, he himself recognized this distinction by introducing an exception similar to the one which he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was now about to bring before the House. It was not on the legal knowledge, or on the acumen and ability of the late Mr. Butt, that he relied alone to found arguments for his Amendment. As he had stated, he founded them upon the merits of the case. The Land Act of 1870 and this Bill itself were full of distinctions. In the clause relating to arrears they would find this distinction between small tenants and large tenants recognized. Benefits were confined to tenants below £30. Why? Because, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, tenants below £30 were a small and helpless class. He might remind the House that in the Compensation for Disturbance Bill of last year, in the same way a limit of value was recognized. But, above all, there was on record the 3rd section of the Act of 1870. There was the provision relating to tenants above £100, with regard to compensation for disturbance, which was the prototype of his own Amendment And not only was that clause upon record, and in the hands of hon. Members, but they had speeches upon record of the then Chief Secretary for Ireland and the then Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Serjeant Dowse). He believed that there never had been two persons in Parliament with better knowledge of Ireland and more intimate acquaintance with the Land Question in all its various phases than Lord Carlingford and that learned Gentleman. When Lord Carlingford used the words he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was going to quote he was Mr. Chichester Fortescue. He said, with regard to tenants of above the line of £100 value, that—

"Holdings above that value were occupied by farmers so independent that they were able to take care of themselves so that it was not necessary to make the clause retrospective so far as those tenants were concerned."—[3 Hansard, cci. 40.]

The then Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Dowse), rising in his place to make a reply, said—

"They (the Government) were convinced that persons with holdings valued at £100—which was equivalent to a rent of £120 or £130—not only were well able to look after their own interests, but often were really more independent than the landlords themselves."—[Ibid., 42.]

If those words were good then, they were good now. What had happened in Ireland since 1870 to make that class of tenants who were then so independent and so free, and even more able to take care of themselves than their landlords were, to reduce them to the same helpless and miserable position which was occupied by those small holders whose misfortune appealed to the hearts of everyone? The plain truth was that those men were not less independent, but more independent. Many of them had taken a very prominent part in recent agitation; he was convinced that many of them, being acute and calculating, had seen in the agitation which had been in no manner occasioned or justified by their misfortunes a good opportunity of benefiting themselves. And although it was, perhaps, perfectly natural and fair for them to do so, yet the House had to look at that matter from the point of view of sound legislation, and to ask itself whether, considering that the whole of that Bill was by the confession of the Government exceptional legislation, it was desirable to make the field of that exceptional legislation one inch broader than was absolutely necessary? He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had said that, in regard to the small tenants, he willingly accepted the Bill as being necessary owing to the exceptional circumstances of Ireland. But he did not believe, and he challenged anyone to show, that the arguments which applied to these small and unfortunate tenants could by any power of human wit be tortured into arguments for bringing the large independent farmers, holding farms rated at £100, paying a rent equivalent to £120 or £130, and owning the capital which ex hypothesi they possessed—for without it they would not hold those farms—within the purview of that legislation. Why were they to treat grown up men as if they were helpless babes—to treat men who were perfectly able to look after their own interests as if they were unable to take care of themselves. It was because he believed they were quite capable of taking care of themselves, and that although this legislation was necessary, it was legislation which they should watch most carefully—it was because he believed that they lived in times when there was a tendency in both of the political Parties in the State to widen unduly the sphere of legislation, to imagine that there was no wrong or evil which could not be im- mediately redressed by legislation, to limit the field of contract, of Free Trade, and of all those great principles which had made the greatness of England—aye, and the greatness of the Liberal Party—it was because he believed those things that he had placed his Amendment on the Paper. It was because he believed that some of those hon. Gentlemen who sat in that part of the House (below the Ministerial Gangway), with whom he often had the pleasure of acting, were especially in danger of adopting those ideas which struck, in his judgment, at many of the main principles of the very Party to which they belonged, that he had unhesitatingly put that Amendment on the Paper, and that he invited support for it—he cared not from what quarter of the House—because he felt that the grounds on which it was based rose altogether above Party considerations, and were those which were consonant to, and coincident with, the soundest principles of legislation and political economy. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

, in opposing the Amendment, said, that the House ought to be careful whether, by its adoption, they would not be holding out to landlords a premium to get rid of small tenants and put large tenants in their place. He saw no sufficient reason why hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House should have any objection to those large tenants coming under the superintendence of the Land Commission. If they paid a fair rent there could be no reason for exempting them from the operation of the Bill.

, in replying to the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) remarked that under copy-hold there was no possibility of variation of rent, as under the Bill; and dealing with the main argument for the Amendment—that the larger tenants did not require the care and protection of the Legislature, said, such an argument had no weight with him (Mr. Arnold), for he regarded the matter affecting the tenants solely as a question of public policy. If one tenant had a property in his holding, another tenant might have a similar property; and, therefore, what was applicable to one class of tenants should be applicable to all. He denied that he had supported the Bill because he held that any class of tenants required the protection of the Legislature. He supported the Bill because its provisions were in accordance with public policy, and because the tenants of Ireland had an interest in their holdings which, one and all, required the protection and award of that House. He could not understand why sound legislation should begin at £100. Sound legislation was altogether apart from various sums of money, and it must proceed altogether upon principle; and it was a distinct and intelligible principle that every tenant in Ireland should have the advantages to be conferred by the Bill. The question whether the Amendment applied to 13,000 tenants, more or less, had really nothing to do with the subject. Questions relating to the ownership and occupation of land were important and deserving the concern of the Legislature, because the ownership of land was a monopoly, and must be so under any circumstances, and the regulation of monopolies was certainly the business of the Legislature. For that reason, it came under the purview of the Legislature in regard to this Bill, and there was neither rhyme nor reason in the Amendment of the noble Lord. Its effect would be to promote consolidation of holdings, and to nullify this useful and valuable measure; and, therefore, he felt bound to oppose it. He confidently hoped Her Majesty's Government would not consent to its adoption, for he could not conceive anything more disastrous to the principles of the legislation upon which they had been engaged for the last one or two months than that this Amendment should be accepted.

said, that the argument of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Arnold) was, that it was a matter of public policy that the tenant should be protected, no matter what capital he might possess, and no matter what his ability to make a fair bargain with his landlord. They had now an avowal from the other side of the House that it was a matter of public policy that the principle of protection broadly applied to capital and to industry generally should be asserted by Parliament. [Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I said investments.] Well, that was a most refreshing view of the case, for he (Mr. Smith) understood that capital was invested when it was applied to the production of machinery, to the building of a mill, to the acquisition of the raw material, and to all those stages which were necessary to produce an article ultimately to be sold. In like manner, capital was applied in agriculture to the payment of rent, to manures, to labour, to the waiting for the harvest, and the realization of the fruits of the earth. Now, they were told that protection was necessary in order that the proper results of the application of capital might be realized by the investor, and that no amount of capital, no amount of independence, no amount of ability to make a bargain was to justify a departure from that principle. But if that principle was to be applied to land, it must also be applied to a great many other things. If it applied to land in Ireland, it must be applied to land in England and Scotland, to manufactures such as existed in Lancashire, to wages, to all the circumstances and conditions of life, as to which they had hitherto been accustomed to enter into free contract. If that were the position taken by the House, if there were to be a new departure, let it be expressed fully and accepted frankly; but, for his own part, he had not lost faith in freedom of contract, whenever it was possible to have it. There might be some excuse for departing from the principle in the case of those wretched tenants for whom expulsion from their holdings might mean expatriation. But all the strength and vigour of Irishmen would be withdrawn if the House were to say that in no circumstances was freedom of contract to be maintained; and he was certain that serious damage would be done to the interests of the whole country if that principle was laid down by the Government.

said, that, so far as he understood the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith), it was a speech against this Bill. His main argument was that if they dealt with land in the way proposed they must apply the same principle to a great many other things—that they must apply the same principles to land in England and Scotland as were applied to land in Ireland. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman in that sense was rather out of date. What were the broad premisses of the right hon. Gentleman, objecting to this interference with free contract in the case of the land of Ireland, compared with the narrowness of the conclusion for which he was going to vote? Having laid down these great principles, the right hon. Gentleman thought he would satisfy them by excluding from the benefit of the most important provision of the Act 12,000 tenants out of 600,000. Now, he (Mr. Gladstone) did not believe that the application of those principles in Ireland would bring about their application in England; nor, if they were applied in England, did he think that either his noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) nor the right hon. Gentleman opposite would succeed in excluding the large farmers from their operation. They would not endure it for a moment. He must say he was disappointed at the appearance of the Amendment at that stage of the Bill. It was an evasion of the scope and provisions of the Bill which he had no hesitation in saying he could not contemplate accepting—indeed, the Government would carry their resistance to it to whatever point they might deem expedient—because they could not draw a broad distinction between the tenant above and the tenant below the line indicated. If Ireland were a country in which there were no tenancies between £50 and £100, he could understand the breadth of the distinction; but the fault of the Amendment was that it drew a very narrow distinction. His noble Friend had quoted the authority of Mr. Butt; but he had never heard a more unfortunate citation. In point of fact, Mr. Butt, though as a private individual, when he drew the Bill, he was inclined to exclude tenants above a certain limit of valuation, when he came into contact with other minds, and drew nearer to the point of responsible action, was obliged to consider, not what he himself preferred, but what it was wise to propose. Then it was that that eminent statesman and lawyer had to cast over- board the suggested distinction, and was compelled to introduce into the Bill all values alike. And yet, ignoring that fact, his noble Friend had used that very argument which Mr. Butt had found it best to reject as a practical provision. Then his noble Friend had quoted, or had rather misquoted, the Act of 1870. It was quite true that, as regarded existing tenantry under that Act, the scale of compensation did not apply to farms above £100; but, in principle, the occupiers of farms above that limit were entitled to compensation as much as those below it. Again, no recommendation of the kind suggested had been made to the Government by any of the bodies who were appointed by authority, and who were entitled to speak with authority on the question now before the House. It was not recommended either by the Bessborough, or by the Majority and Minority Commissions of the Duke of Richmond. That he considered a very serious objection to the Amendment, because, he apprehended, all of these Gentlemen considered the matter, and could not fail to be struck, by the wide investigations which they made, with the material differences between the position of the poorer and the richer tenant. Whatever estimate they took, and whatever experience they had, of those differences, none of them founded upon them the conclusion the House was now invited to draw—namely, to exclude tenants above a certain limit from the benefit of the Bill—a conclusion which, if embodied in the Bill, would, from its excluding 2½ per cent, and those the very men who were alone capable of doing so, make its working difficult, if not impossible. The Government did not intend to proceed on that principle. They had, however, made other careful and elaborate provisions in the Bill for securing at least a fair place to freedom of contract. ["Oh, oh!"] Would the Gentlemen who indulged in those sneers think the Government were adhering to the principles of the Bill if, instead of the provisions which left it to the free choice of the Irish tenant as to whether he should go into the Court, they were to introduce a clause to bring every holding in Ireland under the jurisdiction of the Court? With regard, therefore, to the Amendment, the Government had determined that they would not be parties, even on the persuasion of the noble Lord, to the creation of invidious and dangerous exceptions and distinctions in Ireland. In the original framing of the Act they sought to avoid that difficulty. In the course of discussion the fact was brought under their notice that, under the Bill in its original form, there might grow a creation of future tenancies. They at once recognized that as a fault in the Bill, and said nothing should grow out of proceedings anterior to the passing of the Act except present tenancies. They thought that if they were to have a Bill of the kind, it was folly carried to a very high degree not to give to the people of Ireland, one and all, a fair start in this matter. If, then, they were to give a fair start to the tenants in this matter, they must avoid bringing him under this taint of exception, and endeavour to make it equal in its application from the first, equal in power and privilege. And though he fully granted that they might say that plea of necessity was less strong in regard to the larger tenants, yet he said that the plea of policy, which they could not exclude from view, was stronger still, because the larger tenants whom they would exclude were the men who, by their education, influence, solidity, and position, would become in every case a centre of agitation against the Act, and would endeavour to reduce to a minimum, if they could not annihilate, the chances of its success. These were the considerations of policy, prudence, and equity, which led him to hope that the House would not listen to any persuasion to induce it to bring into the Bill a provision which, in their view, so far as they could judge, was directly opposed to the lines on which they had proceeded in the course of these discussions—a provision which would be most dangerous to the general aim and design of the measure, and one which had not been recommended by any of the authorities, differing, as they did, in politics, that had investigated the Irish Land Question, and given their advice as to the course to be taken in practical legislation.

said, he regretted exceedingly that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had not been able to accept the Amendment of his noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), because, in so doing, the right hon. Gentleman would have satisfied a great many hon. Members who were supporters of the Government, without in the least degree injuring the Bill which was now under the consideration of the House. What were the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman had used in opposing the Amendment? He must say that he had been very much surprised at the vigour of the language used by the right hon. Gentleman, seeing how very small and insignificant would be the effect of the Amendment on the working of the Land Bill. The Prime Minister said it would be impossible to exclude the class of large farmers from this kind of legislation; but, in point of fact, the House had already provided in the Bill one exclusion of the class of large farmers from the operation of the measure. The 16th clause, as far as regarded the future letting of land, provided that the farmer holding land valued under the Acts relating to the valuation of property at £150 and upwards should be able to contract himself out of the operation of the Act. The question he had, therefore, to put was this—Why should it be held that the man who was able to make a contract with the owner of his holding in the year 1884 was not to be considered to have made a reasonable contract with his landlord in 1878 or 1879? The right hon. Gentleman also declared that the large tenants would be the men who would prevent the working of the Bill, and who would agitate for the application of the principles of the measure to their own case. "They will be the centres of agitation" were the words used by the right hon. Gentleman, and he declined to make any dangerous and invidious distinctions in Ireland. But he (Mr. Brand) would ask again whether there were not such distinctions in the Bill itself already—whether there were not distinctions made in the Bill between the present and the future tenant? He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that the Amendment of his noble Friend only placed the large tenants in the position of future tenants under the Bill, so that if this language was deserved, as applied to the Amendment of his noble Friend, it was equally applicable to the case of the future tenant under the Bill. There was only one other point in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to which he would allude. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the noble Lord the Member for Calne had quoted the Act of 1870 to show that by it tenants of upwards of £100 value were excluded from preferring a claim to compensation for disturbance, and had pointed out that tenants in future of more than £100 in value had a claim, under that Act, to compensation for disturbance. But the right hon. Gentleman failed to remind the House that in that Act there was a clause which gave to tenants holding a farm of more than £50 value the right of contracting themselves out of the Act. What he (Mr. Brand) held in regard to the Amendment was this. As far as regarded the future letting of the land, there was no doubt the 16th clause of the Bill sufficiently met the case; but, as regarded present tenants, every contract they might have entered into with their landlords was overridden by the Bill, and he could not understand how anyone could infer that a large tenant in Ireland would be so foolish as to exercise his right of contract so as to deprive himself of the advantage of the qualified fixity of tenure which was given to him in this Bill. Therefore, as far as regarded present tenancies which might last for ever, this right of contract was of very little use indeed. He confessed that he was unable to understand the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold). His hon. Friend said that he did not support the Bill on the ground that it was necessary to protect the weakness of the Irish tenant. In that case, why had his hon. Friend voted for the second reading of the Bill? If it was to be defended on any ground—and certainly the only ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had defended it, who acknowledged it to be a necessary evil—the only ground on which it could possibly be justified was that it was necessary to protect and defend the men who needed protection in making their contracts. Of course, they had heard the argument on the other side as to the consolidation of farms; but he would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to explain how it would be possible for a landlord under the Bill forcibly to consolidate his holdings. It would be necessary, in the first place, that the contiguous farms should fall in, and that they should fall in together within a very short space of time. He could understand the objection of hon. Gentlemen opposite to consolidation. He admitted that under the Amendment it would be possible for the landlord to offer a very high premium to a certain number of tenants to go out with money in their pockets and better their position elsewhere. But the miseries of these poor men in Ireland was the food on which the Land League throve. If they were to go out with money in their pockets, and in order to better their condition, there would be no chance for agitation and no profit for agitators. As far as regarded the figure mentioned in the Amendment of his noble Friend, he did not attach any importance to it whatever. Let them make it what they liked, and state what figure they would, what he contended for was the principle of the Amendment—namely, that it was necessary in this matter to place some limit in the clause; that there were certain men in such a position of independence and strength that they were able to take care of themselves and make their own bargains. There was another point he hoped the House would bear in mind—namely, that this was no proposal to interfere with the right of the tenant to sell his interest. It did not in the least affect the right of the tenant under the 1st clause of the Bill, although even there a distinction might be drawn. He was glad that his noble Friend had placed his Amendment on the 7th clause, because he (Mr. Brand) had foreseen very clearly that it was impossible to touch the 1st clause and to minimize the tenant's interest without mutilating the Bill; and in supporting the Amendment he had no desire to act in a spirit of hostility towards the measure itself. He had found himself unable to vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), on the ground that that Amendment was not only impracticable, but unjust, because, having voted for the second reading of the Bill, he had admitted the principle that every tenant in Ireland had a right of occupancy, the right to which was exclusive of the value of his improvements; and it would be unjust to prevent him from selling his interest because he was the tenant of an English-managed estate. Then those who thought the value of the interest was affected came to the question whe- ther they should oppose the Amendment or fall back upon the question of compensation. He felt that it would have been impossible to raise the question of compensation directly, because it was impossible to prove that the landlords suffered any monetary loss; and although it was raised indirectly, he thought his hon. Friend in charge of that Amendment was perfectly justified in withdrawing it, because, after the speeches from the Treasury Bench and from the Front Opposition Bench, it was perfectly clear that it failed to meet general support. He believed the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) made what was called a "slashing attack" on his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding (Sir John Ramsden) for withdrawing that Amendment. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had so often burnt his fingers in withdrawing the chestnuts out of the fire that he would probably not have been disinclined to see the hon. Baronet a sufferer from the same course. But in regard to the present Amendment, he (Mr. Brand) believed it would mitigate some of the evils which were likely to arise in Ireland under the Bill. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to believe the statement that this was a friendly Amendment to the Bill. [Cries of "Oh!"] He could understand the sneers of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Nevertheless, he still contended that it was a friendly Amendment, because, as he had said before, he did not take his stand on the figure named by his noble Friend, whether it were £100, £150, or £200. It was an Amendment that would affect very few tenancies in Ireland. What they wanted the right hon. Gentleman to admit was that there should be a guiding principle governing the action of the Legislature in interfering between landlord and tenant, or between any other class, in the contracts which they might make, and that the position of the parties—the independence of the parties—should be some evidence of their ability to make contracts with their landlords. He would only add that, as far as regarded the Bill, it must be supported on the ground that it was necessary for the protection of the weakest of the tenants. ["No!"] The interference with free contract which the Bill involved had never been proposed, except on cer- tain grounds, either for the prevention of fraud, as was the case in the Truck Acts; for the good of public morals and health, as was the case in regard to the Sanitary Act; or for the protection of the weak, such as the women and children who were legislated for in the Factory Acts. That was the only ground on which they could defend this legislation; and, therefore, as it was necessary, owing to the weakness of the small Irish tenants to protect them, the House should accept the Amendment on that principle, or else there was no reason why the provisions of the Bill should not be applied to every tenancy in England and Scotland, as well as in Ireland. Indeed, he could not understand why, if an Irish tenant of £1,000 a-year was obliged to go to the Court to have his rent fixed, they should not have a similar Court in Northumberland or Yorkshire. It was with deep regret that he found himself obliged to support the Amendment, because, in supporting it, he found that he was opposing Her Majesty's Government. All that he could say was that he did it from a sense of duty. There were some hon. Members in that House who had been threatened by some obscure individuals for expressing their opinion in favour of a sound public policy long acted upon by the Liberal Party. He believed that the Association to which he referred, and which had made itself somewhat notorious by issuing a very imprudent Manifesto, had for its President a Member of that House. ["Name!"] All he would say was that he hoped when that hon. Gentleman went back to a well-earned holiday he would tell his friends that in the House of Commons there was still a desire to preserve the cherished rights of every section of the Liberal Party, and of every Member of it—namely, freedom of opinion and liberty of speech.

said, the greater part of the speech they had just heard had nothing to do with the question before the House. If the Manifesto to which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) referred came from obscure individuals, he did not see that there was any necessity for taking notice of it. The Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) appealed distinctly to hon. Members below the Gangway. The hon. Member who had just spoken said decidedly that if the Government would accept the Amendment many of their supporters would be much pleased and gratified; and he (Mr. Collings), therefore, thought it high time for hon. Members who sat below the Gangway to state plainly that they, at least, would be seriously disappointed if the Government gave way and agreed to the Amendment. In order to clear the ground, he took it that the supporters of the Amendment put out of sight altogether the number of tenants in Ireland who would be affected by the adoption of the Amendment. It was said that they would number only 13,000; but this number represented a rental of more than £1,250,000 per annum. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) had also stated that a proposal, similar in principle to that which was contained in the Amendment, had already been included in the 16th clause of the Bill. He (Mr. Collings) thought the reference was most unfortunate, because, if he remembered rightly, that was a case in which the tenant, of his own free will, contracted himself out of the Bill if he chose. Therefore, that was quite another matter, and did not justify the conclusions which the hon. Member drew. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment stated that it would not interfere with the right of free sale; but if it did not interfere with the right of free sale it would interfere very much with the price which would be received from the sale. It seemed to him that the noble Lord was enamoured of free contract, but only in cases in which the freedom was all on one side. He (Mr. Collings) very much regretted that the proposition now before the House had been made. They had spent week after week in labour over the Bill, such as, he thought, was almost unparalleled in Parliamentary experience, and now they had reached almost the last stage of the measure, an Amendment was brought forward, not to modify the Bill in any way, but, as far as a considerable number of persons were affected by it, it would absolutely destroy the benefits of the measure—namely, to every tenant in Ireland, at this moment, who was rented at £100 and upwards. Consequently, a large number of tenants who had been anxiously expecting the Bill would, if the Amendment was passed, find them- selves deprived of the advantages of the Court and all the power of fixing fair rents. He called that destruction, and not modification; and, so far as the question of principle was concerned, why should they stop at £100? Why not go down to £50, and even lower than that? If a fair rent was necessary for a farmer who paid £90, why should it not be equally necessary for one who paid £110? He took it that the noble Lord was of opinion that a fair rent was not necessary when a tenant paid a rent of £100 or upwards. The Bill, for the first time, established a tribunal in Ireland for the settlement of disputed accounts between landlord and tenant; and yet the proposition of the noble Lord was, that a certain number of the Irish tenants should have no part in that settlement. Besides, the Amendment offered an inducement to the landlord to consolidate his holdings. It must be borne in mind that the advantages of being out of the Bill might be so great to the landlord as to induce him to make very great sacrifices for the purpose of securing consolidation and to pay a very high price for it, if he could secure such a result. If the Amendment had come from the Opposition, no one would have been astonished at it; but it would have been looked upon as perfectly natural. It would have been in accordance with the course they had uniformly and consistently taken in regard to the Bill, and it was with very great regret that he saw such an Amendment coming from the Liberal Benches, which were supposed to support the Bill and Her Majesty's Government. He had very little fear that the Amendment would be carried; but the danger was that it gave hints and suggestions which might increase the difficulties that would surround the measure in "another place." To his mind, it would be far better to oppose the Bill directly, and to vote for its rejection, rather than to give it what he would call these "stabs in the back." The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) said it was a friendly Amendment; but if so Her Majesty's Government might hope to be saved from their friends. The Prime Minister made a promise when the Bill was first introduced—namely, that the measure, being the least that Ireland could accept, he would not consent to any muti- lation of it. Up to the present moment, the right hon. Gentleman had redeemed that promise in a manner almost unprecedented on any previous occasion. The Bill came out of Committee, after having undergone an opposition of a most unusual character, almost precisely as it went in. He trusted that the Prime Minister would on this occasion put down his foot with more than his customary strength and determination. Hon. Members below the Gangway, on that (the Liberal) side of the House, asked this of the right hon. Gentleman, because hitherto they had supported the Government staunchly, and had avoided interfering with the progress of the Bill by talking about it. Many of them had been prepared to propose Amendments; but they had remembered what the right hon. Gentleman told them—that if the ship were too heavily laden it would probably become impossible to bring it into port, and had, therefore, refrained from moving their Amendments. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would in the most unmistakeable manner show their determination not to allow the Bill to be mutilated or stabbed in the back by its friends.

, who spoke amid great interruption, said, he had listened to all the discussion that had taken place; and he thought that all the arguments were in favour of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice). He could not admit, even after the powerful speech that had been delivered by the Prime Minister, that the Amendment was in the slightest degree contrary to the spirit of the Bill. His main reason for saying that was that one of the cardinal features which distinguished the Bill as originally presented to the House was the distinction which it drew between present and future tenants; and, therefore, the Amendment contained nothing that was foreign to the principle of the measure. There was another argument which induced him to support the Amendment which had not hitherto been referred to, and it was this—that inducements should be offered to the tenants to acquire the ownership of land in Ireland; so that, in the end, a kind of yeomanry such as that which existed in this country might be created. As explained by the right hon Gentleman the Prime Minister, the Bill had been brought forward in consequence of the exceptional condition of Ireland, and upon that ground he (Mr. Cartwright) had supported the measure. He had supported it in every provision he believed to be right; but he did not understand that they were called upon to extend protection to everyone, whatever his financial condition might be. Nor was it necessary that they should adopt the principle of protection without limit; and for those reasons he intended to vote in support of the Amendment.

remarked, that he would not have taken part in the debate if it were not for the assertion of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) in regard to the late Mr. Isaac Butt. He (Mr. Callan) and other hon. Members had endeavoured to correct the inaccuracies of the noble Lord; but the noble Lord, nevertheless, persisted in his assertion. What was it that the noble Lord had said? With that self-confidence which generally characterized him, the noble Lord asserted that Mr. Butt had introduced a Land Bill from the benefits of which the large farmers were excluded. The noble Lord went further, and wantonly introduced the name of a gentleman, Mr. Robertson, of the county of Kildare, who, although a Scotchman, was as honourable and as useful a member of society as the noble Lord. Mr. Robertson was a large farmer, and a generous and kindly employer, and he had become, like many emigrants, more Irish than the Irish themselves. Adverting to Mr. Butt's Bill, the noble Lord personally taunted the Government with having changed their front since 1870; and, in support of his assertion, the noble Lord quoted Lord Carlingford and Mr. Dowse. Mr. Dowse was now upon the Bench, and Lord Carlingford had been relegated to "another place," so that neither of them, at the present moment, could be looked upon as representing Irish opinion. The noble Lord said the Bill of Mr. Butt did not include the large farmers.

said, the representation of the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) was not anything like what he did say. What he said was this—and he had obtained his information from hon. Members better acquainted with the history of Mr. Butt's Bill than the hon. Member—namely, that in the first draft of the Bill tenants of £100 and upwards were excluded.

said, he was quite certain that it could not be the hon. Member who sat next to the noble Lord who was his authority on the subject. It so happened that he (Mr. Callan) was Mr. Butt's amanuensis in drafting the Bill in question, and he would inform the House what the real facts were. Mr. Butt, in 1875 and in 1876, brought in Bills which did not exclude the large farmers; but in 1877, instead of enlarging the scope of the Bill, he altered it, and excluded all grazing farms rated at more than £50 a-year, and also all grazing farms on which the tenant did not reside. The noble Lord's informant must have misled him. But although the Bill of 1877 did not include grazing farms of £50 and upwards, and although it excluded all grazing farms on which the tenant did not reside, he found among the list of Members who voted against that Bill the name of the noble Lord the Member for Calne, who, nevertheless, had voted for the second reading of the present Bill. Many things had happened since then. The state of Ireland had altogether changed; and he would recommend the noble Lord, when he again introduced the name of Mr. Butt in order to sanction any argument against the Irish tenants, to take care that he was accurate in regard to his facts, and that he did not depend for his information upon some third person whose name he studiously concealed.

said, he would not occupy the time of the House for more than a single moment. He feared that he could not lay claim to having given a very cordial support to the Bill, because he had had grave doubts about it, owing to the interference it proposed with freedom of contract. But the Bill would pass, and he took it that, in a great degree, whether it proved to be of advantage to Ireland or not would depend very much on the spirit in which it was passed. He believed the Amendment now before the House would do very much indeed to destroy the benefits to be derived from the passing of the measure. The Prime Minister considered it his duty to send the Bill as a message of peace to Ireland, and it was desirable that it should be sent with a good grace. Although, perhaps, it was not for him to say so, he believed there were many who sat on that side of the House whose objections to the measure had been materially diminished, not only by the extraordinary ability with which the right hon. Gentleman had conducted the Bill, but also by the mastery of all its details which he had exhibited, and which made them all feel the fullest confidence that the right hon. Gentleman had thoroughly mastered the whole matter. Therefore, although the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) might have good reasons for the Amendment he had moved, it was, nevertheless, one which he (Lord Edward Cavendish) could not support.