said, he wished to ask the Prime Minister whether, considering that the House had already once considered the Amendments, he proposed, before dealing with the Amendments seriatim, to make any general statement to the House as to the course which he recommended the House to take with reference to the consideration or rejection of the Amendments?

Sir, we have endeavoured to weigh with care the question to which the hon. Member has just referred, and indeed we did weigh it with care on a former occasion, when first the Amendments came back from the House of Lords, and we came to the same conclusion on both occasions. The main reason for that decision is this—that it would be unsatisfactory were I to make a selection from these Amendments of what I might think most material, for I might convey a very untrue impression by leaving out Amendments which other hon. Gentlemen might deem equally material. On the other hand, if I were to endeavour to go through the whole of the Amendments and state the course to be taken by the Government upon each of them, I should, in the first place, a good deal bewilder the House by the intricacy of details, and likewise occupy a good deal of its time. I should not like to do that if it can be avoided. So we propose to take the Amendments seriatim upon their merits, and to ask the House patiently to accompany us through them in a task which, at any rate, is one of diminished scope and labour. The first Amendment of the Lords—

The Motion is, that the Lords' Reasons and Amendments be now considered.

said, before that Motion was put to the House, he wished to ask whether it was not a fact that in 1870, when the House was in the same position as at present—namely, considering the Lords' Amendments to the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill—the Prime Minister did not, at the request of Mr. Disraeli, make a general statement upon the Amendments before the House?

I think that is very likely so; but the Amendments which were in question between this House and the Lords in 1870 were by no means of the same character and of the same complexity as on the present occasion.

said, he supposed there was no use in an Irish Member putting further questions; but he must express his regret that the Prime Minister had not felt it within his power to make a statement. The conduct of the Government in this matter would tend to embarrass the action of those Irish Members who were particularly interested with the care of the tenants' interests, and would lead to the impression that the Liberal Party had preferred surrender to dissolution.

said, he was sorry to trouble the House; but he and many others had not troubled the House at all on the Land Bill, and he did think it right, therefore, to say a very few words on the present occasion. They had been heretofore almost silent in connection with the passing of that important measure. They had been, in consequence, he might say, exposed to suspicion on the one side among their own Friends, and on the other to the taunts of their Opponents, because of the silent attitude they had assumed. They had been charged with treason on the one hand, and on the other they were told they were blind followers of the Government. They had not noticed these charges, and they had not noticed the taunts. They were willing to sit there, under those imputations, and give a silent and frank support to the Government in pressing on that great measure; but they did that, not out of any indifference to the Bill, not from indifference to the clauses it contained, but from the conviction that Her Majesty's Government had a most important, and most solemn task, he might say, before them, and that their best and first duty was to support frankly and cordially the Government, at the head of which was a Minister in whom they had entire confidence, in passing the measure which he had just now described. They had done so, and their labours, after a long time, had almost been set at naught, as it appeared to them, in "another place." They, the Representatives of the people, supporting the Government of that country, after a long series of discussions, had come to resolutions which had been set at naught by those who were not the Representatives of the people, and those who were not the Government of Her Majesty in that country. They felt deeply grieved at the issue—he did, at all events, for one—and he rather regretted, in accordance with what had fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Parnell), that they had not at once, before entering on any part of that discussion, had a preliminary statement from Her Majesty's Government. They looked to Her Majesty's Government still pursuing the course that would uphold the main principles of the measure that they had so well brought to a conclusion, as far as they were concerned; and so long as they continued to do so he, for one, should give them his full and cordial and silent support, as he had hitherto done; but he did hope, and hoped most sincerely, that no material concession or change would be made in response to that irresponsible Body he had spoken of. If the Government did make such concessions—he was only speaking for himself, he could not speak for others, although he had been in communication with a large number of hon. Members—he did not think they would receive the cordial support which up to that time had been accorded to them from Radical Members below the Gangway.

said, that, in his opinion, the House had good reason to thank the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) for the remarks which had just fallen from him. He (Mr. Healy), on his part and that of his hon. Colleagues, however, felt bound to express his dissatisfaction with the course taken by the Government. That course inspired the Irish Members with a great amount of distrust. He and his Colleagues had found, upon all former occasions, that when the Government had taken a course of the kind which they were then taking, and compromises had been arrived at, the Irish tenant was always the sufferer. That was the course pursued in 1870, and it now appeared that the Prime Minister did not propose to make any statement. They, of course, could imagine why he did not. If the right hon. Gentleman had to make a statement satisfactory to the general body of the House, it would simply be that the House of Commons should send back the Bill to the House of Lords. The Commons' Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords' Amendments were in black and white, and the Government should simply insist upon retaining that disagreement. But the Government had chosen another course, in which might be plainly seen the germs and beginnings of surrender.

said, that he should think those who represented large constituencies would best fulfil their duties by stating their opinions in the situation where they now found themselves. He should feel it his duty, if any large concession were made in the Bill as it now stood, to vote against the Government. He was quite sure that those who, on the opposite side of the House, might be intending to urge Her Majesty's Government to surrender, were preparing for themselves a pitfall which they could not at the present moment realize. There were conditions underlying this question and this state of affairs which, if the matter were forced to an issue, would bring about consequences such as hon. Members little dreamt of. They would find that consequences would recoil upon themselves, which even those who might desire so to do would find it impossible to control.

After some of the remarks made by some of the hon. Gentlemen on this question, I feel bound to say a few words, if possible, to deprecate the violent counsels that we have just heard. I do venture to hope that, whatever happens, the labour that has been expended upon this Bill will not be thrown away. The Bill is, to a large extent, a very good Bill; and if it were carried, even in its present form, it would be a most valuable measure for Ireland. It gives you your Court; you can start that Court immediately, and have it in operation; and, if you refuse, what better will you get and when? I do not wish to accept all the objections that the Lords take; but I say that it is essentially a case for compromise. The two Houses seem to have arrived tolerably near each other, and I do hope that the labour that has been given to the Bill will not have to be gone over again. If you want to fight the Lords—and I am quite as ready to fight them as anyone—it will be quite as easy to fight them upon a Supplementary Bill next Session as upon this one. What I would advise would be to press for all you can possibly get, but do not throw over the Bill. If you cannot get all you want, bring in a Supplementary Bill next Session, and fight upon that.

Sir, as I have only answered the question of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) as to why I did not, upon this occasion, offer a few general observations upon the matter as a whole, perhaps the House will allow me to say one or two words upon what has fallen from the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) and the one or two other hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in this very short discussion. Now, Sir, the principle which we have adopted on the present occasion is that which we likewise adopted on the former occasion. We have gone through the Amendments on their merits, and have endeavoured to consider them on their merits, one by one. I have heard the word "compromise" made use of. Now, that, I must say, is a word I should not wish to apply to our proceedings in the consideration of the merits of the Amendments, with an earnest desire to draw a distinction between real differences in principle, and cases where there may be some motive, some object to be served, not by us yet felt, yet fully understood, and yet not in itself illegitimate as involving any principle. This we consider to be a very important portion of our duty. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wexford has stated that there should be but one satisfactory method of dealing with the subject, and that would be to make a general statement which should involve a universal negative on the Lords' Amendments. Well, Sir, I do not agree with that. I know not what it may be, whether it is parental instinct on the part of Her Majesty's Government, or whether it be an enlightened view of public policy; but, undoubtedly, I think there is in our minds a much greater desire to keep alive the present Bill, and to carry it into law, than appears to suggest itself to the mind of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman refers to the proceedings which were adopted in 1870, and, at the same time, when he says that he considers it an evil omen that the Prime Minister has foreborne to trouble the House with a general statement, he also says that in 1870, in like manner, we compromised the interests of the tenants by the concession we made to the House of Lords. But, at any rate, I think the hon. Member ought to infer, rather hopefully than unhopefully, from our forbearing to make a general statement on this occasion; because, in 1870, when, as he said, we compromised the interests of the tenant, we did commence the operation with a general statement. With regard to what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), it is not necessary for me to repeat the expressions of gratitude, which I ventured a few nights ago to lay before the House, with respect both to the amount and the nature of the support which has been afforded to the measure in various quarters of the House, especially on this side of the House, and which alone has enabled us to overcome the great difficulties presented by the subject and the circumstances of the case; but my hon. Friend has told us, with perfect frankness, that if we departed from the essential principles and structure of the Bill, we must expect him giving votes adverse to our own. I am not surprised at that declaration. It will not be any part of our duty to repeat the announcements made at a very early stage of these discussions with regard to the nature of the obligations incumbent upon us. I do not think it is the course most befitting either our own dignity, or the relations between the two Houses of Parliament, to indulge incessantly or repeatedly in declarations which, I think, once made, if they are believed, are sufficient. That is, perhaps, all that it is necessary for me to say on this occasion. I believe, upon the whole, the House, if it is satisfied with the general spirit in which we have endeavoured to conduct our part of the deliberations and of the decisions on this Bill, will be inclined, having trusted us thus far, to trust us to the end, and not to refuse to enter upon the detailed considerations of the Amendments to which we now respectfully ask the House.

Sir, there are embraced in this paragraph two Amendments which probably I may be allowed to consider as one, in consequence of their entering into the same sentence, belonging to the same subject, and virtually forming a unity. The first is, that the Lords have struck out our words "substantially maintained," and have inserted "or acquired and have in the main been upheld." The other is that they have left out the word "and" and have inserted the word "or." Now, Sir, with regard to the first of these Amendments, we are not able to concur in it, and for this reason. It divides itself into two parts. The Amendment as it stands—"acquired and have in the main been upheld"—first directs us to the sense of the word "acquired." Well, Sir, the introduction of that word, it appears to us, would, by a strange process, introduce into the category of English-managed estates, estates or holdings which have never had the smallest pretension to that character, but which, notwithstanding, having passed into the hands of the landlord by the total extinction of the tenancy—as, for instance, upon an eviction—do correspond to the term that the landlord has acquired the improvements. For, in that case, undoubtedly, he has acquired them. But, at the same time, these are cases which in no manner enter into the spirit of the original proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), or in the steps the Government have taken to give effect to the spirit of that proposal. So also with regard to the words "in the main upheld." These are proposed to be substituted for the words "substantially maintained," on the ground that the words "substantially maintained" might be construed to exclude cases to which it is the apparent intention of both Houses that the clause should apply. Now, Sir, we are totally unaware of what these cases are; and, believing that we understand our own words, and believing that they give a just effect to the intentions of the House, we are very reluctant to agree to the admission of other words which we do not so well understand, and which we think that the Court would be apt to construe, from the very fact that they were introduced as an alternative to the words "substantially maintained," in a sense different to that which we understand and have fully expounded in this House, and which we think was generally recognized as reasonable in this House. Consequently, Sir, we do not agree to that Amendment. With regard, however, to the introduction of the word "or" in lieu of the word "and"—[A laugh]—though it excites hilarity, I am bound to say that the case was stated with perfect accuracy by the noble Lord (Lord John Manners), that in strictness the word" and "applies to one of the two alternatives "acquired and maintained," and the word "or" to the other; and when we come to that word we shall propose words to give effect to that portion of the Lords' Amendment, so far as it is embraced in the description of the noble Lord. I, therefore, propose, in the first instance, to disagree with the Lords' Amendments.

Sir, the Prime Minister has very clearly given us the reasons why he asks the House to dissent from the Amendments which the Lords made in the present instance. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not able to acquiesce in the proposal of their Lordships, for the grounds upon which the other House stated that the Amendment was made were to the effect that the words "substantially maintained" would exclude many cases to which the clause was intended to apply. Those grounds are founded upon this reasoning, that many people who have English-managed estates would be unable to satisfy the requirements of the Court, and to show that every single improvement had been maintained by them, and therefore lose the benefits of the provision. The way in which it now stands is that the House of Lords, although they omitted the words "substantially maintained," have endeavoured, in another form, to present, in a mitigated extent, the ori- ginal idea of the House of Commons. I admit it is extremely difficult, once the element of substantial maintenance is retained in the Bill, to present it in any form which will not be open to a great deal of criticism. I have criticized it, and there will always be to the end of the chapter criticisms upon the idea intended. I myself would have been very glad if the Prime Minister had seen his way to agree to the drafting sent down from the House of Lords, because, as I believe, it would have carried out the declared intention of the Government, and would, to some extent, have met the objections which I took to the earlier drafting.

moved to amend the Amendment by leaving out the words ("or acquired and have in the main been upheld") and insert in lieu thereof the following words:—("By the landlord or his predecessors in title, and have been substantially maintained"); and in the next line to leave out the word ("or") and insert the word ("and").

moved to agree with the Lords' Amendment, explaining that the alteration was of an unimportant nature.

said, he should consider it a very prejudicial Amendment to the interests of the tenants, and one that should be resisted, if a landlord were to be allowed to claim in respect of improvements which were not made or acquired by him or his predecessors in title.

admitted that the Amendments were becoming some- what difficult to follow, and pointed out that as it was required that all the improvements should be made by the landlord or his predecessor in title, it was quite clear that left nothing to be made by the tenant.

said, that although their Lordships appeared to have had no difficulty in dealing with the Amendment, they had returned it in such a muddled condition that no one could understand it at all.

Sir, this is an Amendment of a somewhat wider scope than the first one with which we have had to deal. Although not, after all, of a very wide scope, it has been the subject of very strong feeling and lively interest on both sides of the House, because each side has thought that considerations of justice were deeply involved in the particular view which they took. It is only fair that I should make this admission—that the House of Lords has, by a recent change in the form of their Amendment, greatly limited its effect as compared with the shape in which it left the Commons. Her Majesty's Government have considered the Amendment in its new form with very great care, entirely with the view of ascertaining what will meet the justice of the case; and I am bound to say that although I give very great credit to the House of Lords for the motives that have induced them to propose this new form of the Amendment, the alterations which they have made in it do not meet the objections in principle which lie against it. It has even, by a strange chance, probably increased the strength of some of those objections. I admit that there is one case, which some hon. Gentlemen have put hypothetically, and which, if it really existed, and was the subject of anxiety, would not fall within the scope of the observations I am about to make. I mean the case in which the landlord is supposed to have purchased the tenancy without a change of tenant. Where that case exists, I freely admit the observations I am about to make will not apply to that particular case; but the case the Government have before them is the ordinary case where the landlord purchases a tenancy upon a change of tenant. Now, Sir, I wish, without distinction of Parties, to put to the House this very commanding consideration, which, I think, does not admit of reply; and, I may say, I am glad to see the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) in his place, because no one has paid greater attention to the provisions of the Bill than he has done, and no one more thoroughly understands its principles than he does. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the Amendment, as it now stands, appears to throw overboard one of the main principles of the Bill. It throws overboard the case of three-fourths of Ireland. I will not speak of the usage, somewhat corresponding to the Ulster usage; but it throws overboard everything except the purchase of the tenant right in the case where the Ulster tenant right prevails, and it provides that the Court shall have a general authority, according to what it may think just, to award to the landlord upon the first sale of a tenancy, after the passing of this Act, such consideration in money out of the price realized by the sale of the tenancy as it may think fit and such as will recoup him for the amount he has expended in the purchase of the tenant right. Every care has been taken by the Lords to limit the amount of that claim; but their Amendment, of course, implies that the landlord has a legitimate claim upon that consideration money, and that is an admission which, after very careful consideration, we cannot bring ourselves to make. And the first and main reason for our objection is this. The purchasing Ulster landlord has placed himself, and has placed his incoming tenant, in the exact legal position of the landlord and tenant all over Ireland, and by law his relation to his tenant, after he has purchased his tenant right, is precisely that of the landlord in Ireland to his tenant where no tenant right ever prevailed, or, at least, was ever recognized. That being so, it seems to the Government to follow inevitably from this, that if the legal postion and relation of the Ulster landlord and the Ulster tenant is equal to those of landlord and tenant all over Ireland, the Government cannot consent to introduce a distinction to the prejudice of the Ulster tenant. It would be to the prejudice of the Ulster tenant, because the Amendment, as it stands, imposes upon the tenant who may sell his tenancy a liability that does not attach to the price of the tenancy in any other portion of Ireland. I frankly own we think that is a conclusive objection to the Amendment. There are certainly other objections—many other objections. For example, it is proposed to give to the Court a discretion in this matter without any indication of any sort whatever how it is to proceed, or without any guidance from previous practice in Ireland, or from the practice of neighbouring estates. It is not said whether the Court is to consider the price that the landlord may be paid, or the price that the tenant has to get; and we do not think it right to give to the Court this discretion without, at the same time, applying some standard or indication for its exercise. I said just now that other landlords purchased the tenant right, and the landlord and the tenant were placed in the same position as every other landlord and tenant all over Ireland legally; but actually the Ulster landlord is placed in a better position, for this reason, because he knows, and his tenant knows, that every improvement upon the farm up to the date of purchase of the tenant right belongs to him, and him alone; whereas the other landlords in Ireland have no such certainty as to their title to this or that improvement upon their farms. Then, Sir, it must always be borne in mind that when the Ulster landlord purchases the tenant right, the main thing he purchases is these very improvements, and these very improvements are there in his hand. They are not handed over to the tenant for him to sell and pocket the price. They are absolutely the property of the landlord; and by the 8th sub-section of the 1st clause of this Bill, the Government have carefully endeavoured, as they were bound in justice to do, to secure that they shall remain the property of the landlord, unapproachable by the tenant. It may be said that if the landlord, as is perhaps the case in certain instances, has purchased up the tenant right, and has made no addition to his rent, the then tenant has, up to the present time, had the benefit of improvements for which the landlord has paid, without being called upon to pay any rent in respect of it. That may be perfectly true, and so often as it is true it is unquestionable that the tenant has sat at a rent lower than fair rent. No doubt at all about it. But can we go back upon the rent? The Government think not. If we were to go back upon a rent lower than the fair rent, we should be compelled to go back in the case. But there is another inference that can be drawn, and which would be quite irresistible, and it is this—that if we are to go back upon cases where the tenant has sat at a rent lower than the fair rent, we must be prepared to go back upon cases where the tenant has sat at a rent higher than the fair rent; and the consequence of that investigation we were not prepared, nor would it be at all politic, to encounter. On those grounds, and with that understanding of the matter, I am compelled, while I admit the spirit in which the change was made, yet, in deference to what we think the reason in the case, to move to disagree with the Lords' Amendment.

Sir, the Prime Minister said no more than was just when, in comparing the present Amendment with that which was previously sent down, he said that it was largely modified, and was confined to a very limited number of cases. Really, this Amendment seeks in the most moderate way, subject, as far as possible, to all the restrictions which justice could suggest, to meet what is a special case, and of course a case of not very wide operation over Ireland. There are a limited number of landlords who have purchased up their tenant right in Ulster, and a few other places in Ireland where an analogous custom prevails, and this provision merely seeks to give to the Court, not a power of paying back to those landlords the purchase money that they gave, but merely the power of considering all the circumstances. I should be glad if the Prime Minister saw his way to accept the Amendment in its present form, or if he would suggest Amendments upon it which would bring it into harmony with the requirements of the case. I do not think the Amendment would operate to the prejudice of a single tenant in Ireland—in Ulster or elsewhere—because it must be remembered that the tenant came into possession of his holding free from the obligations of every other tenant—namely, the purchase of his holding. The right hon. Gentleman said that the remedy of the landlords would be found elsewhere in the Act. That may conceivably be so; but there is not in the Bill a remedy which I think many landlords in Ireland would readily see. I do not think that even under this Act they would, in pursuit of a remedy, gladly raise their rents.

said, he had listened with great pleasure to the remarkably clear statement of the Prime Minister, in which he stated his reasons for opposing the Amendment. It must be noticed, however, that the Amendment only affected the Province of Ulster, and it had been rumoured that that Province was to be favoured in the compromise which had been arrived at with regard to the Lords' Amendments; but he trusted that the Government would adopt a similarly firm attitude when they came to the other Amendments affecting the Province of Munster.

Sir, I only rise to say that my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) has fully expressed the objections which we still feel to the course proposed by the Government. We are not satisfied at all with the reasons which have been given by the Prime Minister; but I do not think it would be advisable to enter into a prolonged discussion of the matter. Still, while reserving our opinion, we do not think it desirable to put the House to the trouble of a division.

said, he thought the Lords' Amendments reasonable ones, and he would ask the House to agree to them.

wished to point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite that this was a distinct concession that would be highly valued by many Irish landlords. By the Common Law the right of killing game belonged to the occupier of the land, though the landlords, when they gave leases, usually reserved the right to themselves; but most Irish holdings were subject to no such reservation, and the Amendment, therefore, gave the landlords a right that would be much esteemed.

considered the Amendment ought not to be agreed with, and as the Government had made three concessions to their Lordships, he thought it was time there should be a division. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland could not contradict what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), and he (Mr. Healy) did not see why they should accept the Amendment, and so deprive the tenant of what was his by law. He, for one, was not prepared to give way on this point, and should certainly divide the House on the subject.

said, that the Lords had assigned the following as the Reason they would give for this Amendment:—

"Because it is essential that there should he no doubt that, during the continuance of a statutory term, mines and minerals, coals, and coalpits, are the exclusive property of the land-lord, and that the tenant should have express notice thereof."

He (the Attorney General for Ireland), however, thought it an insufficient reason, because nobody except their Lordships supposed these things were included in a holding under statutory conditions. However, they wished to have it in this fashion, and, as the clause had at length been so altered as to enact nothing inconsistent with the rights that had been recognized as belonging to the tenant, he consequently did not object to the Amendment.

asked, whether in a case where the tenant, under his contract of tenancy with his landlord, had a right to work a coal or other mine on the holding previously, the tenant would not be debarred from the right by the acceptance of the Amendment?

said, that if such a case were to arise, no doubt there might be such a difficulty as was just suggested by the hon. Member; but he never yet knew of a yearly tenant having a lease of a coal mine. However, there could be no objection to adding the following words:—

"Subject to such rights as the tenant, before commencement of the said statutory term, was lawfully entitled to exercise."

said, in consequence of the peculiar nature of the action they were now engaged in, it sometimes happened that a Motion was made for the disagreement with an Amendment when the intention was to meet it, and vice versâ, and that was one of the cases he now had before him. In the Bill, as amended by their Lordships, hon. Members would find the words "consequent upon an increase of rent" had been inserted. He should propose to strike out those words, and after that was done he should propose to insert in the blank thus created the words "save as hereinafter provided." The real question at issue was this—whether they were or were not to maintain the security of the tenant against resumption by the landlord, for what he might call landlord's purposes, during the first statutory term. They were distinctly of opinion that they must adhere to the character the House had given to that statutory term. He did not say that no sacrifice of the landlord was involved in imposing that condition on his interest, yet he was quite certain that the sacrifice of the landlord was altogether immaterial as compared with that belief that would go forth in Ireland were they to destroy the idea which he believed so justly prevailed in the minds of the people, that for a certain moderate term they would be free from the landlord resuming possession. On that ground he adhered substantially to the original intention of the Government. The form of the Motion would therefore be to disagree with the Lords' Amendment, with the intention of having it amended as he had proposed. Though apparently agreeing to the Lords' Amendment in form, they were in reality rejecting it.

said, as explained by the Prime Minister, the Amendment involved only a verbal change, and did not make any substantial variation at that point. The words of their Lordships, even if they remained as they were, were only introductory to a change made in a subsequent clause in a different form.

asked the meaning of the substituted words "hereinafter provided?" The omitted words, "consequent on an increase of rent," were clear and specific. He thought the change was more than verbal, and he was very suspicious when he found the right hon. and learned Gentleman the ex-Attorney General for Ireland in so amiable a mood with reference to this compromise. This compromise was injurious to the tenant and to the Bill. It was a compromise made in the fell spirit of Irish landlordism.

said, the substitution of these words did not make a particle of difference in the effect of the sub-section. They referred by anticipa- tion to the 3rd sub-section of Clause 7, which created the statutory term.

asked whether they were to consider that the objection of the Lords to the form of words was of such a character that it could be met by a merely verbal Amendment?

said, at this particular place that was the case.

said, he could not help feeling that this was a concession of words where they had refused to concede principles, merely for the purpose of pleasing the Lords and soothing the Marquess of Salisbury. It ought not to be made, for it should be recollected that the Government passed this section through Committee and on Report without permitting any alterations.

said, that, as he understood it, there were two kinds of tenancies, which might be called first-class and second-class tenancies. As the Bill now stood it was to the effect that during the continuance of a tenancy of the first class there should be certain rights. The House of Lords had proposed to strike out the words confining it to the first class, so as to make the provision applicable to both classes. The Government proposed to disagree with that, thinking it would destroy the Bill, and they proposed to do it in this way—that there should be certain rights in all cases, except those of the tenancies of the second class, which was precisely the same thing. On their side he and his Friends did not agree to the substance of that proposal, as they thought the Lords were right, and that no preference should be given to one class over another. Still, they would not take a division on the question.

said, it was a matter of great importance that the power of resumption on the part of the landlord during the first term of 15 years should not be conceded, and the Government had no intention of conceding that point. They thought the words now proposed were really better words for their purpose than the words that originally existed, because they pointed to an after provision which was to be the exception which they thought they ought to maintain.

complained that Members could not get copies of the Bill, and, therefore, were unable to follow the discussion. This was miserable twopenny-half-penny economy.

said, the re-printing of the Bill was by order of the House of Lords.

said, the question of compensation for disturbance had receded into a position of much less importance under this Bill than it occupied under the Act of 1870. At the same time, the Amendments made in the disturbance scale by the Government, and subsequently by the House, were made after much consideration, and he saw no reason for departing from them. He therefore moved that the House disagree to the Lords' Amendment.

said, he would venture to say that this was a clause which would be very rarely appealed to, and why the Prime Minister should have so resolutely stuck to it all along, was one of those things which would puzzle posterity. His (Mr. Gibson's) views were that the scale should be struck out altogether, for it was one he could not understand, being both illogical and unnecessary, both root and branch; but what was now in dispute was a small matter, the Lords having only made two modifications on the figures of the scale, and he therefore could not understand the hostility of the Prime Minister to the proposal.

said, this was a case where substantially there was a great disposition to arrive at an agreement upon this point, and the Government, though wishful to insert words to meet the general views, were prevented from doing so by the Forms of the House. He therefore moved, in point of form, to disagree with the Lords—that was to say, to retain their own words, but to add words equivalent to the Amendment of the Lords which would leave exactly the same breadth of choice on the whole. The words he proposed to add were—

"Or having otherwise failed to come to an agreement with the tenant as to what is a fair rent for the holding."

It was quite the same thing. [Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!] But he must add in fairness that the words were founded on what was substantially the sense of the House of Commons.

said, it was very evident that their Lordships had been encouraged to make this change in the Bill owing to the action of the Government the other night. The Amendment practically conceded all that their Lordships wanted. The Bill treated the parties on equal terms, and it would go to Ireland not in the shape of a message of peace, but in the shape of a threatening letter. Whenever the Bill passed, there would not be a landlord in Ireland who could not write a threatening letter to every one of his tenantry to bring him into Court. As now arranged, that was an unfortunate and miserable Bill, and every tenant would be shaking in his shoes the moment he had a disagreement with his landlord. He denounced the change in the Bill. It was one of the most disadvantageous changes that had been made, and it would result in making the Land Court one of the most unpopular institutions in Ireland.

said, he should be very glad if he could recognize the vital nature of the change; it required the acute ability of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to discover it. So far as he could see, the Amendment made, practically, but little change in the position of the landlord. He and his Friends had all along contended that the landlord should be able to go into the Court unfettered by any restriction, and on equal terms with his tenants.

said, the change seemed to him to be calculated to improve the relations between landlord and tenant. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was quite mistaken as to its probable effect. Her Majesty's Government thought it was undesirable that if the landlord wished to obtain a fixity for the first 15 years, the only road by which he could get it should be by demanding an increase of rent. It would be better that it should come by trying to make a bargain with his tenant; and if he could not do so, then he could go into Court. It would be an advantage to the landlord that he should be able to get fixity for 15 years, without demanding an increase of rent. There was no obligation put on the tenant to say what he thought should be the reduction. The Government had always protested against that, because of the different circumstances in which the tenant was placed as compared with the landlord.

observed, that whether the proposal would be oppressive to the tenant or not depended entirely on the expense. If the Court was constituted as cheaply as it ought to be, there would be no oppression at all. Until lately the tenants had only asked for equal right of access to and advantage before the Court with the landlords. The Assistant Commissioners, if they were employed properly, would be arbitrators going through the country, and would prevent the necessity of formal proceedings before the Court.

said, the hon. Member for Galway County (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was in error in his statement, that the tenants were content to be placed on an equal footing with the landlords in regard to access to the Court. The hon. Member had himself voted for a Bill introduced by the late Mr. Butt, which provided that the Court should be open only to the tenant; and when the matter was brought up at meetings of the farmers, and when his Bill was criticized in the House, Mr. Butt always pointed out that it was most desirable that the Court should not get a bad name in the minds of the tenants as being a Court to which they could be forcible brought by the landlord, but should be a kind of refuge to which the tenant could resort whenever he wished. Mr. Butt said the landlord could always bring the tenant into Court by means of a notice to quit, or by trying to increase the rent. The position of the two parties was entirely dissimilar. The landlord had a great many other remedies; he could recover his rent in a variety of ways, and could sell the tenants' interest; and he thought it most unfair that now, at the eleventh hour, an additional remedy should have been given to the landlord. They, by such a proceeding, laid the seeds for the future choking of the Court, and would make the Bill completely unworkable. The significance of that Amendment derived additional weight by the Amendment on the 57th clause, by which the Government gave the Court power to stay the sale of the tenant's interest for arrears of rent for three months until the judicial rent had been fixed. The landlord would now be able to drive his tenants into Court, and so to clog the Court that it would be perfectly impossible to have the judicial rent fixed in three months with the result that he could bring an action for, perhaps, six months' arrears, and issue a writ to sell out his tenant's interest. He regretted that the Government had altered the character of their Bill, as it would make the tenants look upon the Land Court with the greatest distrust, and lead them to associate it with the other Courts where the law was administered entirely in favour of the landlord, and where they never could get justice. It would also give the strongest possible leverage to the Land League, if they wished to keep the tenants from going into Court, as they probably would.

said, he was very sorry that there was a great misapprehension apparently, and, through that misapprehension, a considerable mis-statement of fact, with regard to that Amendment. The fact was that there was not one single landlord in Ireland who would be enabled to go into the Court by the Amendment as now proposed who could not have gone into Court under the Bill as it originally stood. The difference was simply this—that, as the Bill previously stood, he would only get into Court by demanding an increase of rent. Well, was it desirable to put upon him that odious and invidious duty in a case where he did not want an increase of rent, but only to have it judicially fixed? He might want to concede a deduction, or to obtain judicial sanction of the present rent. But, as the Bill stood, he could not obtain that sanction without demanding from the tenant an increase which the tenant was unwilling to pay, and then the tenant had no option, in defending himself against that increase on the rent, but to go into Court. It seemed a much fairer thing both to the landlord and to the tenant that the landlord should be able to obtain this fixity if he liked without going through that invidious course, and making a demand which he might not think just or necessary, but because it was the only means of getting the rent fixed.

believed there was a little more in the Amendment than the Prime Minister seemed to think. Still, he (Mr. C. Russell) thought its importance had been greatly exaggerated by hon. Members opposite. He would vote against the Amendment if it was pressed to a division; but he did not think the effect of it, if passed, would be very appreciable. He hardly thought the Chief Secretary for Ireland's expectation that landlords would apply this clause for the sake of reducing a rent and of giving a fixity of 15 years to a reduced rent was well founded. He had very little hope of that expectation being realized.

thought the Amendment, as now proposed, did not provide for one case that might easily occur. The landlord might wish to have a rent fixed, which the tenant was willing to pay; but the tenant would not go into Court with his landlord to have it fixed for the statutory term. The landlord was then put in the disagreeable position of having to ask the Court for an increase of rent, which he did not really desire.

thought that the Government must feel, after the heated language which they had heard throughout the country against the audacity of the other branch of the Legislature, that they had hardly adequately recognized the benefits conferred by the House of Lords in that Amendment. The Prime Minister had fallen into a slight inaccuracy as to the form of the Bill as it originally stood. The landlord could only appear in Court as a defendant, or a prosecuted party. Then the Prime Minister made a concession, and allowed the landlord to appear as plaintiff; but only after doing an act which in Ireland would be generally looked upon as an arbitrary act. The House of Lords would enable the landlord to appear in Court without having the appearance of doing an injury to the tenant. The Lords' Amendment was a valuable one, and he was glad that their Lordships had been the means of bringing the Government to a better frame of mind and inducing them to yield on this point. In the event of a sale of an estate, it might be of great advantage to the landlord that he should have the power of going to the Court and obtaining a judicial valuation of his land, and get a statutory term imposed upon all the tenants.

said, that the inconvenience of the course adopted by the Government was now becoming manifest. If the Prime Minister had made a general declaration, the Irish Members would have been better prepared for the change which had been so suddenly proposed. He was driven to what might appear to be a somewhat uncharitable conclusion, that either the Government were endeavouring to slip out of their original intentions with regard to this matter, or else that they did not understand the consequences of their action. He thought the Amendment was a fatal structural change in the Bill, and he must say he disagreed with the view taken by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). The clause, in its altered shape, enabled the landlords to go into Court under different circumstances and conditions. The hon. Member for Galway said very properly that if the landlord went into Court, having demanded an increase of rent, a certain amount of odium attached to him, and that the burden of proof was on his shoulders; but now he could go into the Court without the least odium, and that appeared to the hon. Member to be a representation of the tenant's interests. According to the hon. Member, it was a desirable thing that the landlord could now threaten the tenant with an action; the burden of proof that the rent asked was a fair one was not on him, and he could use the statutory term as a Damocles's sword over the heads of the tenants as a means of increasing rents in order to improve his property for the purpose of sale. Was it, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would ask, desirable that every landlord should have that power to use it at his will? That was a game at which it was easier for the landlord to play than the tenant. They were making litigation compulsory which was formerly optional, and were thereby arming the landlords with an additional power. His hon. Friend's (Mr. Parnell's) Amendment, that six months' grace should be given in pending ejectments, had been reduced to three months, and the result would be that landlords would commence so many ejectment proceedings that it would be impossible for the Court to fix the rents before the period had elapsed.

explained that his belief was that the more rents that were judicially fixed, the better for the peace of the country. He knew that what the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) wished was that rents should not be judicially fixed, but that there should be a loophole for agitation.

said, that the Amendment was the beginning of a clear indication that the Irish tenants were being sacrificed to a compromise to be arranged between the Liberal and Conservative Parties. In the long run, injury would accrue to the Liberal Party, and to the Conservative Party also, from this sort of patchwork concession. Irish tenants would resent most bitterly the proposal to place this weapon of litigation in the hands of the landlords. An Amendment of this kind might pacify the House of Lords; but it would not pacify Ireland. The Conservative Party had got their hand on the key of the situation at the present moment, and he advised them to look to the Irish people, now that the Irish people were being deserted by the Liberals.

said, he was very much surprised at the vehemence of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. O'Donnell), and would ask the House quietly to consider whether there was the very smallest foundation for all this outcry? There were two modes by which the tenant might get a judicial rent and a statutory term—by decision of the Court or by voluntary arrangement with the landlord as to what a fair rent should be. It was said that this Amendment was a weapon forged by the Government to please the Conservatives; but he (the Attorney General for Ireland) contended that hon. Members opposite would have shown less ingenuity, perhaps, but certainly more candour, if they had described the proposal of the Government as a mode by which the Irish tenantry would be enabled to obtain a reduction of rent more easily and quickly than by going to the Court, and a statutory term without any precedent litigation at all. It should be remembered that the Lords' Amendment had really been first proposed in the House of Commons, where it was considered by a vast majority of hon. Members as a fair solution of a difficulty, and where it would have been carried but for a merely technical objection. It would surely be unfair to say that no landlord should have a fair rent fixed on his estate except after incurring the odium attaching to a demand for a rent to which he was not justly entitled. He really thought, with all respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, that they were riding their horse a little too hard. They had hardly given sufficient credit to the Government for a desire to do what was just to the landlord without being at all prejudicial to the tenant. The object and. effect of the Amendment was manifest, and it left the tenant perfectly free.

Let the House consider for a few moments the object now declared to be that of the Irish section, according to the declarations of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). The House has decided to establish an institution by virtue of this Bill which is termed the Land Court, and this Court is to decide in matters of equity between the landlord and the tenant. The proposal of the hon. Members whom I have mentioned is that this Court shall deal with the subject-matter land, having only one of the two persons interested in the land before it. The other person interested in the land, the landowner, is never to appear in Court except as a criminal, as having violated the chief object of this Act, the establishment of a fair rent, by asking a rent which he must know beforehand, according to this precious scheme, that the Court will reject as too high; otherwise the landlord will have no locus standi before the Court at all. A Court pretending to deal in equity which would be limited to having only one of the two parties interested before it of right would not deserve to be called a Court at all. The hon. Member for the City of Cork has been at much pains to explain to the House that, however iniquitous may be his suggestion, it involves an object which the Party that he represents has contemplated and striven to attain for years, that object being neither more nor less than this—to outlaw the landlords.

put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that a landlord, under the Amendment, might induce a tenant to accept a nominal reduction of rent, to which he would be bound for 15 years. The tenant might unwittingly find himself bound to a settlement for that term of years, which was adverse to his interests, and contrary to the previously declared intentions of the Government when the Bill was introduced, for it was understood to be a Bill for the tenant, and not for the landlord.

also inquired of the right hon. and learned Gentleman what the landlord could require to go into Court for but for an increase of rent? He was astonished at the remarkable change which had come over the policy of the Government, especially as only the other night the Lord Chancellor made a strong speech in support of not giving the landlords the powers now sought to be conferred upon them. He believed that it would simply lead to litigation, and there was no doubt that the clause was the result of a communication between the Leaders of the two Parties, in order to make things pleasant all round for the Members of both Houses.

said, it would be very injurious to the tenant farmers in many cases to apply to have a statutory term fixed, because of the conditions involved in the term, and the penal consequences of any breach of them. Of course, in many other cases, it would be wise in the tenants to apply to have a statutory term fixed. When this Amendment and the Amendment to sub-section 5 were inserted in the Bill it was a permissive Bill no longer. The Government wanted to give fixity of tenure—he begged pardon, he should say durability of tenure—to the tenant; but it was for his own benefit. Where, however, the tenant thought it was not for his benefit to have a statutory term extending to 15 years, he ought to be at liberty to choose a shorter term. The Bill was rendered very mischievous by forcing this statutory term upon the tenant. He begged to move an Amendment on the main question that the amended Amendment be agreed to, that in cases of agreement between landlord and tenant the statutory term should be reduced to such term as the tenant might suggest. He should like to tell the Irish people, if the Bill passed, to improve their holdings at once, and see what foreign competition would do, and then afterwards ask a reduction of rent; but, in the case of persons to whom the rent they were paying was a case of life and death, he would say go to the Court at once and have it reduced.

said, that the hon. Member would not be in Order in proposing an Amendment on the Amendment after the Question had been put from the Chair, that the House do agree to the Lords' Amendment as amended.

said, in that case, he was content, and would only say a word more. He had formerly desired that the Bill should be passed. Certainly, now he did not desire it at all. He believed that the Bill, in consequence of the alterations which had been made in it, was now an instrument of oppression that might be used against the Irish tenants, and he should not be sorry to see it drop. The Government had done their worst to make the measure unpopular by introducing the most momentous changes into it, which would involve the loss of millions of money to the Irish people. The only course open to the Irish Members was to divide against the clause, and protest against structural changes being made not in Committee, but on the consideration of the Lords' Amendments. The Government had turned a Bill which might have been of some advantage to the Irish tenants into a most mischievous and dangerous one.

said, he was afraid the Government did not see the disastrous effect of the alterations they had agreed to. There could be no doubt that every Judge in Ireland would differ from every other as to what was a fair rent, and that some Judges would be very favourable to the landlords. Where the landlords found a Judge who was influenced in their favour, they were sure to bring the tenants into Court to get the rents fixed.

said, that they came now to an Amendment which would require an effort on the part of the House, first of all, to grasp clearly the nature of the point they had before them, which was rather complex in point of form; and, secondly, to take a thoroughly cool and dispassionate view of it. The most important subject of it was the following words, which had been inserted at the instance of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), "and having regard to the interest of the landlord and the tenant respectively." Those words, it would be recollected, were accepted by the Government and inserted with the express view of giving confidence and satisfaction, rather than to introduce any new principle or idea into the Bill. When they came before the Lords, however, they were viewed as being intended to bring in again an idea which the Government had always emphatically disclaimed—namely, that the value of the tenant's interest in his holding was to be legitimately deducted from the rent which would otherwise be due to the landlord. The Lords accordingly provided against what they conceived to be a danger. In the first place, they struck out the parenthetical words of the Commons; and, in the second place, as a double security, they introduced a subsection (9) to the clause, which ran in these terms—

"The rent of the holding shall not be reduced in any proceedings under this Act on account of any money or money's worth paid or given by the tenant or his predecessors in title, otherwise than to the landlord on coming into the holding."

That sub-section the House of Commons deemed to be open to the objection of again bringing in the principle of de- duction, and as bringing it in, in connection with a supposed "largeness" of tenant right, without taking into consideration the case which might, of course, happen, that the very smallness of the tenant right might be urged as a reason for increasing the rent, just as much as the largeness of the tenant right might be urged as a reason for diminishing it. The House of Commons, perceiving the nature of this one-sided Amendment of the Marquess of Salisbury, struck out that sub-section, and restored its own words, and the Lords responded to that proceeding by again striking out the parenthetical words and replacing the sub-section. He was going to ask the House to treat these two Amendments together; and it would be impossible to take a fair view of the importance of the parenthetic words unless the sub-section 9 was also taken in view at the same time. As he had said, the Lords had replied to them by again striking out the parenthetical words, and again reinserting sub-section 9; but he was bound to say that the sub-section. 9 which they had sent them was of a character, from their point of view, quite distinct from that which they sent them before. It looked to him as if some new and skilful hand had tried its effect upon the manipulation of the subsection; and he thought everyone would at once see the difference in its character from the sub-section which they formerly had to deal with. The words now proposed were these—

"The amount of money or money's worth that may have been paid or given for the tenancy of any holding by a tenant or his predecessors in title otherwise than to the landlord or his predecessors in title shall not of itself, apart from other considerations, be deemed to be a ground for reducing or increasing the rent of such holding."

Those were words at which they had looked critically and dispassionately, and he was bound to say that they thought they did not contain any injurious element. Therefore, treating that as really one Amendment, the course they proposed to take was this—to agree to the subsequent Amendment as sent back to them, and they proposed to replace the parenthetical words of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, which, if they contained any element of danger, and they did not admit it, would find that danger sufficiently blocked out by sub-section 9, because it simply said, what was evidently quite true, that the amount of tenant right interest might be an important illustrative fact, and have a strong indirect bearing on the question of rent, but which

"Shall not, by itself and apart from other considerations, be deemed to be a ground for increasing or reducing the rent."

Therefore, they acceded to that sub-section upon the deliberate conviction that in so doing, while meeting a difficulty honestly entertained, they were not, in any degree, imperilling any of the interests which they sought to defend by that Bill. The course, therefore, he proposed they should take was this—to introduce the parenthetical words, and then agree to the Lords' Amendment in the closing sub-section.

presumed that, technically speaking, the effect was to treat these words and subsection 9 as one; and though they disagreed with the Lords with regard to the words of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), they were not absolutely rejecting the whole of the Amendment. He thought, under those circumstances, that the course which was proposed by the Prime Minister seemed to be one that would really afford a satisfactory solution of a somewhat curious complication, to which more weight had been given than, in his opinion, the words objected to justified. He had never quite understood the original insertion of the words, except on the hypothesis that they were intended as a direction to a Court that still remained to be constituted, and which might, perhaps, act otherwise, to deal in some special way with the tenant's interest in his holding. At any rate, it was clear that factitious importance had been attached to them; and it was some satisfaction, after hammering the matter out between the two Houses, to have at last removed a misapprehension that might have led to more serious difficulties.

said, the object for which he introduced the Amendment was that the Government had originally words which directly referred to the tenant's interest. He thought it objectionable that the clause should leave the House without some words securing that object. In the second place, nowhere in the Bill was to be found admitted, in connection with rent, the tenant's interests in his improvements. As to sub-section 9, he did not quite understand it. He found in it language with which he was not familiar, as usual in an Act of Parliament. He found no definition in the clause itself of what was meant by "the tenancy of a holding." Now, it seemed to him that the tenant's interests in his holding included the improvements either made by himself or paid for by him. Having regard to the nature of that interest, he did not know why it should not be taken into account by the clause, nor could he understand the force of the words "by itself, apart from other considerations." The sub-section was very inartistically drawn. He saw great danger in the words as now proposed, and believed their effect would be exceedingly misleading. He would, therefore, suggest, in order to insure that the interest of the tenant should not be encroached upon, and that he should not be charged rent upon improvements which he made himself, that an Amendment to this effect might be introduced—"otherwise than for improvements."

observed, that what ought to be the test was what the improvements were worth. He contended that the interpretation which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Charles Russell) put upon the words was a wrong one, and that the clause as now agreed to would really meet all the difficulties of the case. It must be remembered that this Amendment followed a provision in which there was a distinct prohibition against making an allowance or charge in respect of improvements against the tenant. He must say that, with the most earnest desire to insert nothing in the Bill which would cut down the tenant's interest, he could see no possible way in which it could be suggested that it would prove injurious to the tenant. The Government had also scanned the Amendment most anxiously with the view of seeing if in any way it would operate improperly against the tenant; but they had been unable to see any. They thought it would be of advantage to the tenant and landlord alike.

said, that, looking at the long history of the Bill from its commencement, it appeared to him that the adoption of sub-section 9 by the House would very materially injure the Ulster Custom, if it would not entirely destroy it. The Bill, as introduced in the House of Commons, directed the Court, in fixing a fair rent, to have regard to the interest of the tenant in his holding; and that interest was defined, in the case of holdings in Ulster, to the tenant right custom which existed there, and outside that Province to any analogous usage. The insertion of this sub-section, therefore, entirely destroyed the tenant right custom. If the amount of the tenant's interest in the open market was not to be regarded in fixing a fair rent, except there were other considerations which the Court could also take into account, he (Mr. Parnell) thought they were entitled to ask the Government what were those "other considerations," apart from the money paid, which were to be regarded in the case of a person who bought the Ulster Custom when he applied to the Court to fix a fair rent? In the case of a tenant who had sold his interest, and the purchaser applied to the Court to fix a fair rent, what were the considerations here? He did not see what other considerations there could be. He had been willing to limit the discretion of the Court by giving the landlord the right of pre-emption; but that was not the meaning of the sub-section. The meaning of it was that there should be other considerations taken into account by the Court in fixing a fair rent apart from the money paid by the tenant for the interest. That dealt a fatal blow to the Ulster tenant right custom and against the intention to confer freedom of sale in other parts of Ireland, because the tenant would not be able to sell his interest at a fair marketable price; or, at all events, he would be greatly hampered in the sale of that interest. He regretted exceedingly that the Government had departed from their original position in this matter. The history of Clause 7 had been one of continual giving way on the part of the Government. As it stood originally, it gave tenants in Ulster the right to say that their interest consisted of the Ulster tenant right custom; and to tenants outside of Ulster, that their interest con- sisted in compensation for improvements they might be entitled to under the Act of 1870, and in compensation for disturbance to which they might be entitled under the same Act. A strong set, however, had been made against the clause, and the Government for the sake of peace, and for the sake of getting rid of the very strong opposition which undoubtedly would have proved fatal to the Bill, gave in, and said they would leave it to the discretion of the Court; but, at the same time, they assured the Irish Members that the words which they cut out from the original were still suggested in the Bill, and the tenants were protected. The clause had now come back from the Lords, with a very vague addition, which he (Mr. Parnell) defied anybody to explain, and which the Government would not attempt to explain in the slightest degree. If the Government were going to agree with their Lordships in this Amendment, Irish Members were entitled to claim that the clause should be restored to its original state. If the Government were not going to keep their word with the House, and leave the matter to the discretion of the Court, but if, at the eleventh hour, they were going to turn round and introduce a definition against the tenant and in favour of the landlord at the bidding of "another place," the Irish Members were also entitled to turn round and ask that the clause should be defined in the interest of the tenant, and that it should be restored to the form it originally bore before it was altered to get rid of Conservative opposition in this House.

said, he thought the House of Lords had gone a long way in the solution of the difficulty which arose under that clause. That difficulty commenced when his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Charles Russell) introduced his words into the Bill, which were entirely unnecessary. The words, however, being in the clause he (Mr. Shaw) did not think they could submit to their being struck out. The original intention of the Government was to leave the question of the rent entirely to the Court, and the insertion of these words gave rise to a fear on the part of the landlords that there was some hidden intention of taking the absurd price given in the North of Ireland, and taking 5 per cent on that price out of their rent. He believed no Court in existence would do that. But the fear being there, he thought it was a very natural feeling on the part of the landlords to be rather alarmed on the subject, and this was their mode of solving the difficulty. It struck him at the beginning that there was nothing very serious in these words; but he should certainly preface them with a provision which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland assured him was already in the Bill, and in fixing the rent any improvements on outlay made by the tenant or his predecessors in title should not be taken as a ground for raising the rent. If it was provided for in the Bill, he could not see that these words would do the slightest harm. He did not think there was any hidden or sinister object in them; but if there was it would be all the worse for the landlord in the long run. He thought, however, that some words might be introduced which would make it discretionary on the Court; and he would suggest that these words should be inserted, in "ease the Court should be of opinion that an excessive sum has been given."

said, he thought there was some misapprehension on the part of hon. Members opposite as to the effect of the words. They always thought that the words inserted by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) were merely a development of the words "after hearing both parties"—that was, that the Court, in estimating a fair rent, would hear the parties; and, having regard to the interest of the landlord and the tenant, consider all the circumstances of the case. He did not, he confessed, think that, even as such, they were necessary. He was aware, however, that the Irish tenants attached a good deal of importance to these words; but that was as nothing compared to the fear as to their import which seemed to exist in "another place." They had, however, got into the clause, and, having got in, the House, he submitted, should abide by them. As had been pointed out, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk was the innocent source of the Amendment which, he agreed with the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), had led to the whole of the difficulty. There would have to be some inquiry behind the amount paid for the tenant right, so that the mere money paid at the beginning of the tenancy would not be conclusive in favour of the tenant.

said, he agreed with the object desired by the hon. and learned Solicitor General and the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland; but doubted whether the clause, as worded, would carry it out. The defect might, however, be remedied by a very slight change. Why not add, after "the sum of money shall not be taken into account," the words, "apart from the present value of the tenant's interest?"

thought that hon. Members opposite representing Ireland somewhat misunderstood the application of the sub-section. It was rather a protection to the tenant than otherwise. In Ulster, he (Mr. Givan) could say from experience that when a high price was paid for tenant right, the landlord generally came to the conclusion that the rent was too low, and raised it accordingly. All the arguments as to the injurious effect of the proposed sub-section on the tenant right of Ulster appeared to him altogether illusory. He was glad that the Prime Minister retained the words which the Lords had struck out. The very reason given by the Lords for disagreeing with that House was sufficient reason for that right hon. Gentleman's course, for the Lords assumed that the tenant had no interest in his holding.

said, he was glad that the Government had accepted the sub-section.

said, he had been informed that the sub-section, as it stood, would cause a great amount of alarm and discontent amongst the Irish tenants. He would suggest that the words "in excess of what is deemed by the Court reasonable" should be added after the words "money's worth."

said, he felt in a position of pain and difficulty about that Amendment, as it had been his lot to have spoken upon the subject three or four times, and to go over the same ground on each occasion. He only hoped that, as his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had pointed out—and as he admitted—it was in the competence of the Court under the Equities Clause, all the matters which had been alluded to would be taken into account.

said, he entirely disagreed with the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. The Amendment of the Lords only made clear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished.

said, the Government could not accept the Amendment. He must, therefore, move to disagree with it.

said, he was sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had announced the intention of the Government not to accede to the Amendment. The principle had already been acceded to at the end of a second statutory term, and he could not see why the resumption should be prevented in the case of a first statutory term. It might be necessary in some cases for a landlord to have the power of resumption for the purpose of supplying the wants of the neighbourhood during the first statutory term; but, under the clause, the Court would not have the power of granting it.

said, he did not think the words proposed to be introduced were at all necessary in that part of the clause. In fact, he thought they might be decidedly injurious. He must, therefore, ask the House to disagree with them. He proposed, however, to add the word "otherwise" before the word "compensated" in the clause, which would suit the case.

admitted that the words, as proposed, were an improvement of the clause as it now stood; but he did not think that they made up for the words which the Lords had put in, and which were almost identically the same as those which he (Sir Stafford Northcote) had moved when the Bill was in Committee. Those words were taken from the Land Act of 1870, and only provided what was fair—namely, that the Court should take into consideration the length of time during which the tenant had been in enjoyment of the improvements at a low rent. The Amendment met the case of a man who took a holding at a moderate or low rent with a view of making improvements which would cost him something, but for which, on the terms on which he had taken his holding, he expected the length of the lease would enable him to recoup himself. He, therefore, hoped the Government would not object to the insertion of the words. It seemed to him to be very fair and reasonable.

said, that such a case would be sufficiently covered by the words of their Amendment—" paid or otherwise compensated for," which they proposed to introduce after the Lords' Amendment had been formally disagreed with. They were much more simple than the words from the Act of 1870. Their contention was that if there was any doubt about the meaning of the Amendment, that doubt would be removed by the insertion of the word "otherwise." They summed up all the matters that the Court could take into consideration under the words "paid or otherwise compensated." He thought the adoption of the Lords' Amendment would lead to some ambiguity, though, perhaps, it had some basis in reason, and might be accepted if it were modified and made more clear in its language.

said, he would admit that the word "otherwise" made an important change; but he did not understand why the Prime Minister objected to the particular words contained in the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote). He (Mr. Gibson) thought it was conceived in the most moderate spirit. It only asked that effect might be given to that which nine out of every ten reasonable men would consider the ordinary common-sense view of the case—namely, that the Court should take into account the date when the tenant commenced to make his improvements and the rent which he paid. He could not agree with the Prime Minister that these elements, in a fair decision of the cases which might arise, were, with sufficient detail, stated in the Bill as it stood. If the statement of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland and of his right hon. Friend were engrafted upon the rules of the Court he would be quite satisfied; but he was not quite content that the Court should alone be guided by the words of the clause as it stood.

opposed the Amendment, being apprehensive that under it the landlord might receive compensation for improvements for which he had not paid. He did not see that the length of the enjoyment of the improvements had anything to do with the question. He saw no reason why the landlord should, in the rent, have consideration for improvements which he had neither purchased nor given any other compensation for.

supported the Amendment, believing that if it were not adopted a tenant who had already received compensation for his outlay through the payment of a low rent would again receive compensation in money. He maintained, further, that there were other cases which had been overlooked. Land was often let at very low rents on the ground that improvements should be carried on.

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) would not give the House the trouble of dividing, as Lord Cairns had yesterday agreed with Lord Carlingford that the Lords would not insist on their Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) had. not forgotten the interesting conversation he had with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Attorney General for Ireland yesterday, arranging what was to be done in the matter. [Mr. GIBSON said, he was not in London yesterday.] Well, it might have been on Saturday, but the effect was that they were assisting at a farce. The policy of the Government was based upon two principles—the one was to dish the Conservatives and the other to dish the Irish Members; and at the former operation some right hon. Gentlemen who were still influential amongst the Conservative Party were assisting.

thought the Government, in opposing the Amendment, was refusing what was fair. He could not understand what objection there could be to the adoption of an Amendment which recognized the right of a tenant to full compensation for the capital and the labour he had expended upon his holding.

rose to appeal to hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench not to delay the progress of the Bill. They knew very well what they were to get, so that it was a perfect farce continuing the discussion. The Lords had adjourned till half-past 11, and it was desirable that they should meet to receive the Bill at that time, for punctuality was the soul of business He would put it to the Members of the Government not to continue that comedy any longer. Having conceded so far to their Lordships they might, with £ good grace, grant all the rest.

moved to amend the Amendment by the insertion of the word "otherwise" before "compensated," the object being to allow the Court to take into consideration the low-ness of a rent paid by a tenant in awarding compensation for improvements.

said, he was opposed to the addition of the words.

said, that either the word "otherwise" had a meaning or it had not; and if it had a meaning at all, the meaning was in a sense unfavourable to the tenant's interest. He protested against that giving away, bit by bit, on the part of the Government. The proposal was an illustration on the part of the Government of thefacilis descensus Averni. In the original Bill the words were—

"No rent shall be paid in respect of improvements made by the tenant or his predecessors."

But the Lords added—

"For which, in the opinion of the Court, the tenant shall not have been compensated by the landlord or his predecessors."

Here was another "sop to Cerberus." The construction which the Government put upon the matter was exactly that which the Lords had put; and, under this proposal, the Court might take into account the time during which the tenant had enjoyed the benefit of the improvements. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The Prime Minister shook his head, but that might mean anything. He feared they were doomed to "or otherwise; "but they should not be doomed to it without a division.

said, there was no such sinister intention as the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) seemed to suppose. It was not meant as a sop to the House of Lords, or anything of the kind. The word "compensated" in the clause might be considered by some purely a synonym for "paid." He understood that hon. Members opposite thought it fair that where a landlord had paid for the improvements they should be his own. But the landlord might pay for them either by money or money's worth. To pay in hard cash was one way of compensating the tenant; but if the tenant got money's worth from the landlord, surely that was another way of compensating him. In that view, the Amendment was fair and reasonable, because it would enable the Court to take into consideration whether money or money's worth—the same thing as money—had been received from the landlord in assessing the value of improvements.

said, that it was part of the plan which the hon. and learned Gentleman was now carrying out that the concessions were minimized in this House and then maximized and magnified in the other House. For the sake of common honesty, the Irish Members would take a division against the system.

said, that the words "or otherwise" would be a dangerous innovation as affecting the tenant's interest, for, with those words introduced, length of time during which the improvements were enjoyed would be looked upon as absolute compensation. That was entirely contrary to the principle of the Bill, which was that if a tenant made an improvement it should be his own, and no length of enjoyment should put a bar to his further enjoyment of it. But there was nothing in this clause to prevent the Judge from saying—"Here is a man who may have spent £1,000 on improvements; but he and his predecessors have been compensated by the length of time they have enjoyed them." Such a principle never existed in our judicial decisions; it was not to be found in the laws of this country nor of Ireland either.

said, it was very desirable that the tenants should understand from the wording of the clause that length of enjoyment was not to be taken into account by the Court in fixing the rent. There was nothing in the sub-section, should it contain the words "or otherwise compensated," to prevent the Court from taking into consideration the length of time. Would the Government have any objection to introduce words making it plain both to the Court and to the tenant that the length of time during which the tenant might have enjoyed those improvements should not be taken into account in fixing the rent? It would be easy to do that by introducing words to the following effect:—

"Provided, That the time during which the tenant may have enjoyed the advantages of such improvements shall not be held to be compensation within the meaning of this sub-section."

He begged to move the introduction of those words.

said, that the hon. Member could not do so now. The Question before the House was that the words "or otherwise," be inserted before "compensated."

suggested the substitution for "otherwise" of the words "in money, money's worth, lowness of rent, or otherwise."

moved to insert the words to which he had referred before the last division.

Here, again, Sir, I must ask the House to consider the object of the Amendment which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) has moved. Every hon. Member who is acquainted with agricultural improvements, particularly with those attempted by the Irish tenants, must know that all of them are calculated to be temporary in their beneficial effect. Take land-draining, for instance. Land-draining as performed in Ireland, especially in the reclamation of waste land, is calculated to be beneficial for from 10 to 20 years. It would be a very liberal estimate to imagine the buildings they erect are calculated to be useful for 30 years; but the substance of the proposal of the hon. Member is that the tenant shall be practically compensated with these improvements for ever, that he has to acquire a perpetual and beneficial interest in the property on which these improvements are made. In all time to come these improvements will continually need renewal, and each renewal is to form an additional claim on the part of the tenant. What is this but a disguise for the old pretension on the part of the Irish tenants to actual possession, and for ever, of great part, if not the whole, of the fee-simple of the property? I am quite sure that no hon. Member who is acquainted with agricultural improvements can vote for the Amendment.

said, it was not long ago that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) proposed an Amendment suggesting three elements to be taken into account by the Court. Now, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), after assisting in the rejection of that Amendment, brought forward a proposal containing one of those elements. The statement of the proposition of the hon. Gentleman carried with it its own condemnation, for it required very little consideration to show that a Proviso of this kind might work substantial injustice. Under no circumstances should any weight be given to it.

said, he entirely agreed with the proposition which he believed the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) wished to express, that the time of enjoyment during which the tenant might have reaped the fruits of his improvement should not of itself be taken into consideration by the Court. But he was bound to say that was not the Amendment, which implied and declared that, in no circumstances, and under no form, should the element of time be taken into consideration; whereas, in the matter of improvements, it would be a proper and legitimate thing to take into account the amount of compensation the tenant would have received in the length of time he had enjoyed those improvements. Moreover, if the objection on that ground were removed, the Government were still bound to hold that the Amendment was unnecessary, because it was nothing short of impossible that the Court should imagine or adjudge that to be compensation by the landlord which had never cost the landlord in any shape in money, or money's worth, a single farthing. Consequently, the Government could not accede to the Amendment.

said, that he was a tenant of the Crown in St. James's Place, and he had a holding there for 30 years. It suited his purpose when he took possession to spend a considerable sum in improving the property of the Crown. He wished to know whether the Prime Minister would be prepared next year to bring in a Bill by which he (Lord Elcho) would be entitled to receive back at the end of those 30 years the sum he had expended for his own good? If not, he wanted to know why not? He also wished to know how the logical or illogical minds of the right hon. Occupants of the Treasury Benches could draw a distinction between the two cases, because, in his stupidity, he was unable do so.

asked the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire whether anybody stole from him or from his forefathers the land which he rented from the Crown? But to be serious. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister seemed to ridicule the notion that the Court would grant compensation in the case put by his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell); but, to use one of the right hon. Gentleman's own phrases, would he be prepared to lay 10 to 1 that the Court would not do so? He (Mr. Healy) would take the bet at the first opportunity. The Government could not, it seemed, get rid of that bogey of the House of Lords, and they refused to put their own words into the Bill. The House had had no sufficient explanation of the word "otherwise." The Government said it did not mean what the Irish Members in this Amendment said it did mean. He should like to hear now what meaning the Government really attached to it, in plain language. The demand made by the Irish Members in that House was that a tenant should not have his rent raised on account of his own improvements. If a man had brought a mountain or a morass into cultivation, no lapse of time ought to authorize the landlord to raise the rent.

said, he would tell his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) what "otherwise" meant. It meant that there was to be no Dissolution.

said, that if the Amendment were accepted, the Court would still have the power to say to the tenant—"It is true you have made improvements; but you have held the land for a considerable time under its proper value, and consequently you shall not have compensation." There were but "three F's" in the Bill when it was introduced, and those small "F's," in the words of the Prime Minister; but he (Mr. Leamy) defied any man in Ireland to discover in the Bill in its present altered state more than one of the "three F's," and even that one must be taken on trust.

contended that the House ought, in common justice and fairness, to accede, in substance at least, to the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The words inserted in the House of Lords left the true effect and extent of the clause in much doubt. There was no slight ground to apprehend that the views expressed by the Prime Minister in respect to preventing any increase of rent upon the tenant's improvements would be defeated if the House now simply agreed to the Lords' Amendment of this clause.

said, it was a very common thing in England for the landlord to charge an increased rent upon the tenant's own improvements. That being the case in England, he was not surprised that it should be the case in Ireland; and, therefore, he failed to understand why the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He held that no lapse of time could justify the exaction of an increased rent from a tenant who had improved his land; and he was, therefore, of opinion that no words should be allowed to remain in the Bill which would seem to confer upon the Land Court the power of increasing an improving tenant's rent on the ground that the improvements effected by him had been enjoyed for a certain length of time. The Amendment, at least, had common justice on its side. He was glad that the Government had stood firm to their proposals so far, and hoped they would so alter or modify the clause as to give effect to the Amendment of the hon. Member.

said, he could see no objection to the acceptance of the Amendment. The agitation in Ireland had been very largely owing to the fact that the tenants were obliged to pay an increased rent according as they improved their holdings. He would suggest, as a way of getting out of the difficulty which had been raised, that words should be inserted in the Bill to provide that consideration of time alone should not be deemed sufficient ground for increasing rents.

said, he had nothing to do now but to perform the formal duty of proposing to the House to agree with the Lords in the said Amendment. The Amendment was justly treated in substance as part of the Amendment which was fully debated and passed a little while ago. In the remarks on it, he did not hear fall anything which showed that the Amendment required to be amended; and at the present stage of their proceedings it would, he thought, be very undesirable to introduce any Amendment on small and doubtful points. He moved to agree to the Lords' Amendment.

said, he would move the insertion in the sub-section, after the word "from" in the 4th line, of the words "the reasonable value of the tenant's interest, and." Thus altered as he desired, the sub-section proposed by the Lords in lieu of the sub-section struck out by the Commons would run as follows:—

"9. The amount of money or money's worth that may have been paid or given for the tenancy of any holding by a tenant or his predecessors in title otherwise than to the landlord or his predecessors in title shall not of itself, apart from" (here his words would come in) "the reasonable value of the tenant's interest, and "—the sub-section ending thus—"other considerations be deemed to be a ground for reducing or increasing the rent of such holding."

As the sub-section stood at present, it partook of the same defect as the subsection which the House had just disposed of, It left the matter in doubt as to whether the interest of the tenant would be had regard to in fixing the fair rent where that interest consisted of a sum of money, and consisted only of a sum of money paid, by the present tenant or his predecessor in title. Therefore, he thought the Government ought to consent to the introduction of these words. He agreed it was not right that, on an estate where the rent had been allowed to remain low, and where the tenant right had mounted up to a very excessive number of years' purchase, in such a case the whole of the tenant right should not be taken into account in the fixing of a fair rent, but that it should be left to the Court to estimate the fair interests of the tenants on such an estate, and fix the rent accordingly. The phrase "apart from other considerations" was too vague; but, by the adoption of his Amendment, the power would be given to the Court to intimate what the reasonable value of the tenant's interest was. He, therefore, moved his Amendment.

said, he hoped that the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) might not be pressed; but, in any case, the Government could not be parties to the adoption of it. The reasonable value of the tenant's interest might in many cases, according to the Irish practice, be a large element of the case in fixing a fair rent. That was frequently the case, and it was one of the "considerations" here referred to. He did not, however, at all admit that it was a consideration that ought to be singled out from all others. The fact of so singling it out would be to present it as a kind of rule or standard to the Court, and then all the jealousies and alarms with regard to the old doctrine of deduction, which he hoped they had put aside, would revive. He must, on that ground, offer a most decided opposition to the adoption of the Amendment.

said, he must confess that he saw the Prime Minister gradually assuming an extraordinary attitude towards the tenant right custom compared with what he proposed in the original draft of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman now said that the tenant right "might" be one of the considerations which the Court would take into account; whereas, by the original clause, the right hon. Gentleman said it "must" be considered by the Court. Under the constant metamorphoses through which the Bill had passed, the right hon. Gentleman was minimizing, and was almost leaving out of sight, that very tenant right which had been put first among the points which the Court had to regard. Why should not the Court have the power of deciding whether the tenant had not paid, not an exorbitant, but a reasonable price for the tenant right, and, if he had, of settling what the fair rent to be paid should be?

said, he would point out to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that he was under a misapprehension with regard to the action of the sub-section. There could not, as the clause stood, be excluded from the consideration of the Court any consideration which was necessary for the decision of the question at issue. If a fair price had been paid for the tenant right, that view would not be excluded. If an exorbitant price had been paid, the fact would not be allowed to prejudice the landlord.

said, he considered the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to be in favour of the Amendment. The fact was, however, that the Government were afraid to carry out their own plan, for fear it would vitiate the secret agreement that had been made behind the back of their supporters, and with the mere object of clinging to Office.

said, it was clear that an obsequious Government had determined to strike out everything that would be taken into consideration in the tenants' interests, and hastened to put in all that would be taken into consideration in the landlord's interest; and it should be remembered that it was by the weak hangers-on of the Government in that House, as sub-Commissioners, that the provisions of the Bill would be given effect to. They knew the views of their employers in the matter, and would naturally act on them, and bring in a verdict against the tenants. ["Oh, oh!"] He was not aware that a good honest Whig considered it a disgrace to go to the Government for a place. On the contrary, he considered himself flattered when he got it. ["Question!"] Every hon. Member from Ulster was looking for a place from the Government. ["Question!"]

The hon. Member should address himself to the Question before the House.

said, that hon. Members should bear in mind that if, in two or three years, it were found that the clause did not give satisfaction, it would be as easy to strike against a judicial rent as it was against the rents of the present time.

said, he really could not see the advantage of this sub-section. When the rent came before the Court to be fixed, a great variety of considerations would be put forward both by the landlord and the tenant. The tenant would put forward a number of things to show what the value of his tenant right was, and the landlord would also bring forward a number of other things to show that the interest of the tenant was very small and of very little value. That being so, he wished to know why "the amount of money or money's worth that might have been paid or given for the tenancy of any holding" was singled out and made a special subject for the consideration of the Court—why was it made a subject of special exception at all? It was evidently made the subject of special exception for the purpose of whittling away the tenant right; and it must have been introduced for that purpose, and for no other conceivable purpose. No reason was offered to the House why it should be introduced exceptionally in this way, and brought forward negatively for the rejection of the Court. Seeing that the matter was brought forward in this manner, it could only be in order that it might tell against the tenant's interest and be a weapon in the hands of those who desired to cut down the interest of the tenant. The result, therefore, would be to make the people of Ireland distrust the Act, and have recourse to other methods for protecting their rights.

This Amendment is purely consequential upon the insertion in a later clause of the parenthetical words we inserted in the early part of Clause 7.

said, there were two differences to be observed. In Clause 8—formerly Clause 7—there were both this Amendment and the Amendment just disposed of, and it was necessary to read both together and in connection with each other. There was now no such Amendment to balance the present Amendment now being disagreed to; and he wished to know if the Prime Minister had considered the effect of striking out the words proposed in the Lords' Amendment. He admitted that the Amendment applied to the class of clauses called voluntary clauses, and that it might be either accepted or left alone.

I am of opinion that, considering the purely voluntary nature of the clause, it would be better not to make any further change.

This is an Amendment which is insisted on by the Lords for the reason which has just been read; but it is quite obvious that the terms of that reasoning are quite fatal to what has been admitted to be just and true with regard to the Ulster leases. I, therefore, move that the House should disagree with this Amendment and maintain the substance of the clause. There is, however, an Amendment which we propose to insert in lieu of it, the object of which is to bring the clause relating to this class of leases into analogy with the clause relating to the judicial class of leases, by providing that all leaseholders should be present tenants at the close of a judicial lease, if the judicial lease should be for a term not exceeding 60 years, which is a pretty liberal term. We propose to put in words placing the same regulation as to time, and making the clause applicable to leases not exceeding that term. The exact Amendment we propose is to insert in line 10 of page 16 of the Bill, after the word "leases," the words "or of such of them as shall expire within sixty years after the passing of the Act."

said, he supposed that the House was familiar, having the Paper before them, with the important character of the Amendment, which the Prime Minister stated that he did not see his way to assenting to. As the Amendment had been repeatedly discussed in the House, and as it was one on which he had himself already expressed his views, he should not weary the House by repeating his argument in any detail. But he must, however, state that he thought it was, in principle, a serious change, and a serious inroad on a principle which had always been maintained. It would seriously interfere with one of the most important covenants that existed in all leases, and it would add to all leases the right at their termination to the lessee of a holding to hold on as long as he pleased. He assumed that the changes made on the last occasion would now be replaced; and, to some moderate extent, that course would meet the objections he had made. The very limited power of resumption given to the landlord would meet the objection in some special cases; but it must be borne in mind that the power of resumption was made difficult to the landlord. It was not left to his own discretion for any purpose, however serious and important it might be to the landlord; but, in the first place, he must satisfy the Court; and, in the second place, he must pay every fraction awarded by the Court. This, of course, raised a serious difficulty, and the power of the Court cut down to the narrowest limit the advantage to the landlord. The Prime Minister now proposed another modification, which, as he (Mr. Gibson) understood it, was this—to provide that the clause should only apply to leases which had 60 years to run.

To expire.