moved to leave out the words "now considered," in order to add instead thereof the words "re-committed to the former Committee in respect of Clause 75."—[Clause 75,—HARBOUR RATES.]

"The Commissioners may demand and take for or in respect of articles mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act exported or imported over he Bar any rates not exceeding the respective rates specified in that Schedule. The said rates are in this Act referred to as "Harbour Rates."]

He said he should not have moved this Resolution had he not felt that if the Bill passed in its present form it would really cause a very serious injustice to a large number of traders, who traded in a neighbouring port to the port of Llanelly itself. He proposed that the Bill should only be re-committed so far as Clause 75 was concerned, and his Motion did not in any way affect any other part of the Bill. If the clause, or the subject of the clause, had come before either a Committee of the House of Lords or House of Commons, and had been discussed by them, he should have considered the matter had been inquired into, and should have no right to interfere by trying the get the Bill re committed. The position was this: The Llanelly Port and Harbour Commissioners wished to improve their port. The harbour of Llanelly was on an estuary of a river called the Burry River and the Llwchwr River, and above four miles lower down on the mouth of the estuary there was another port called the Burry Port in behalf of the traders of which place he suggested the Bill should be re-committed. The whole object of the Llanelly Port and Harbour Commissioners was to improve their own port, and in no sense could it be understood or thought that they were going to improve the Burry Port. The lines of deviation of any of the alterations they were entitled to make did not come within two miles of the entrance to the Burry Port. For 60 years both the ports had been carrying on business in the estuary, and no harbour dues could be charged upon goods taken into the estuary unless they were shipped or unshipped in the port of Llanelly itself; but by the alteration which had been made in Section 75 any ships in future crossing the bar whether loaded or discharged at Burry Port or Llanelly, would have to pay for coal 2d., and other goods such as tin plates, harbour dues at the rate of 6d. a ton. There were 125,000 tons shipped and unshipped in Burry Port, and the traders would be mulcted to an amount of £1,000 a year for the purpose of improving Llanelly Harbour. When the Bill came before the House of Lords Committee the rights of the Burry Port people were not affected, but when it came to the House of Commons the clause was altered. None of the shippers knew that their rights were going to be interfered with, and consequently were not represented, so that the question was never raised in either House. It was obvious that where Committees were formed they took all the care they possibly could in regard to the clauses of the various Bills which came before them. But there were 137 clauses in this Bill, and however clever the Chairman or Members of the Committee might be, it was utterly impossible for them to go through clause by clause the whole of a Bill of the kind and find out how it would work with respect to one particular class of persons unless their minds were directed to that specific matter. On the promoters' own showing this was never raised, and although he agreed that it was not a good way of doing business to refer matters back to Committees when they had once considered them, if by some accident a really gross injustice would be perpetrated which was never called to their attention, an exceptional case was made out, and it was the duty of the House to refer the Bill back to the Committee that they might reconsider Clause 75. He could not help thinking that when it was seen that the whole of the Bill was intended for the benefit of Llanelly, they would say that it was ridiculous to make Burry Port pay Llanelly £1,200 a year for the pleasure of having their opponents, the Llanelly Harbour people, improving their own works that they might compete with them. He was quite independent in this matter. Burry Port was in his constituency and so was Llanelly, although it was a borough represented in the House. There were as many of his own supporters or the supporters of his opponents living in Llanelly as in Burry Port. He felt that such an injustice was being done to Burry Port that, if it were brought home to the minds of the people in Llanelly, they would be the first to say they did not want to get an improvement to their harbour at the expense of a neighbouring and similar port.

in seconding the Motion, said it was clear that the insertion of Clause 75 in the Bill involved great hardship on the traders of Burry Port. They had always been willing to pay for any extra facilities they had ever had; but under this Bill they would have to pay a great deal and get nothing in return. The question was, whether the Burry Port traders had been guilty of such negligence as to disentitle them to have the Bill recommitted that Clause 75 might be reconsidered? When the first Bill was introduced they might have had notice that the question of rates would be raised; but this subsequent Bill contained nothing to indicate that the condition of the traders of Burry Port would be disturbed in any way. The Bill originally introduced contained nothing which prejudicially affected their interest. No fair-minded man would, in such circumstances, consider that they had been guilty of such negligence as would disentitle them to have their case reconsidered. Their attention was never called to the effect of Clause 75, and they had had no fair opportunity to place their views before the Committee. He submitted that they would be very harshly treated if the Bill was not recommitted.

said that, as Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill upstairs and passed it as long ago as June 22nd, he desired to say a few words on the Motion. The Bill came down to the Committee from the House of Lords. Prior to going up to the Lords the Bill contained a clause dealing with dues, but it was found that there were a number of old Acts of Parliament that it was better to repeal, and so Clause 75 was substituted. The Bill, therefore, contained that clause when it came down from the Lords to the Committee. He understood during the proceedings in Committee that the Bill gave the traders of Burry Port free anchorage and everything else they asked for. The fact was that this opposition to the clause was an afterthought. The traders who were now opposing the clause were in the Committee-room and heard the whole of the evidence.

The traders were not represented before the Committee.

said he understood the promoters of the Bill had already spent £5,000, and it would be a great hardship to them, as well as a violation of principle, to recommit the Bill.

opposed the Motion. The Bill had passed the Lords, and also the Committee of the House of Commons, after a full inquiry, lasting ten days or more, during which the petitioners against the Bill were heard. The Burry Port traders pretended to be taken by surprise in regard to the proposed rates on goods. He could not take that view, because when the Bill was first deposited in the House of Lords there was in Clause 66 express and specific reference to these rates. Notice was again given to the traders in the Parliamentary notices of the Bill which were inserted in the local newspapers, and specific reference was made to the powers asked by the promoters of the Bill to deal with rates. A copy of the Bill was served upon the Burry Port Railway Company, who were virtually the opponents of the Bill that afternoon. ["Hear, hear!"] In the House of Lords, also, the principal witnesses for the promoters were partly cross-examined about these rates. He contended that the traders of Burry Port would suffer no injustice whatever from the clause. Three out of four traders opposing were present before the Committee, and had an opportunity of hearing fully the evidence and the speeches of counsel, and not a word of objection was raised by them. He knew the locality well, and ventured to say that Burry Port traders would suffer no injury whatever. On the contrary, they would benefit by the Bill. It was admitted by the opponents of the Bill that the works proposed to be constructed would improve the entrance to their harbour, and would directly benefit the traders of Burry Port. He hoped the House, therefore, would not agree to the Motion. It would be a great hardship if, after the expenditure of something like £5,000, the promoters had to go before a new Committee and re-examine all their witnesses over again. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he had very great difficulty in considering this case. It had been very fairly put before the House by the two hon. Members opposite who moved and seconded the Motion. The difficulty he felt was this. All the Rules which the House had laid down for the guidance of persons approaching it in reference to private legislation had been complied with in this case. Notice was given of the Bill covering this Clause 75 as it now stood. It was quite possible that the traders of Burry Port had been misled by the fact that the Bill as originally deposited, contained Clause 66, which was difficult of construction. He had no doubt himself that the promoters of the Bill, in drafting that clause, intended to impose charges on Burry Fort from which it had up to that time been free. On the other hand, the traders of Bury Port, on reading the clause, might very well have thought that under that clause they were exempt, and would continue to be exempt, from the rates and tolls which the promoters intended to charge. The authorities of the House of Lords, as soon as they saw Clause 66, said that in their opinion it was very involved and very difficult of construction, and they thought such a clause should not stand. Thereupon the promoters of the Bill altered the clause, cut out a portion of it, and inserted Clause 75, their object being to make it perfectly clear that they intended to impose those charges on the trade going to Burry Port which the port up to that time had not been subject to. In the Bill which came before the Committee of the House of Lords this clause stood, it was considered, and passed. In the Bill as it came before this House this clause stood, and he thought it was admitted that, not until the Bill was actually through the Committee stage did the traders of Burry Port discover that possibly they might suffer damages from the Bill. Whether that was so must depend upon evidence which he had not heard. There possibly might be a hard case if the Bill went through in its present form. He did not know, but it might be a great hardship to the traders of Burry Port if they had these charges imposed upon them, without perhaps deriving any advantage from the works proposed to be constructed. But he had not been able to form an opinion on that matter. He was there only as a custodian of the Rules of the House, and as such, he could only advise the House that, however hard the case might be, the Rules had been fully complied with. If the traders of Burry Port did not become aware of the fact that these charges were likely to fall upon them, it was their own fault. The notices of the Bill clearly clearly covered the Bill as it now stood; and it would be a dangerous precedent to allow parties at the eleventh hour, or rather on the stroke of the twelfth, to demand the recommittal of a Bill because they had not appreciated the significance of the notice sent to them. If the House were not to stand by the notices which it required, there was little use in insisting on them. He would advise, on this occasion, as the Rules had been complied with, that the Bill should not be recommitted.

hoped that the Bill would not be recommitted. A great advantage to Burry Port would result from the building of the dock. The Commissioners had already been at great trouble to keep the estuary free, and they had spent about £20,000 on the work. All along it had been the view that those who landed or exported goods there could be fairly called upon to con tribute towards the enormous cost of keeping the estuary free. From the first there had been no doubt about the intention of the Commissioners to make this charge, and he hoped the House would not establish a dangerous precedent by recommitting the Bill.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of applications to have a fair rent fixed which have been lodged with a view to obtain a hearing in the County Courts since the passing of the Land Act of 1887, in the following counties: Clare, Kerry, Limerick, Queen's County, Waterford, Longford, Meath, Westmeath, Tipperary, Kilkenny and County Down; and, can he state the number of cases put down for consideration by the Land Commission, other than cases transferred from the County Courts by landlords, during the same period?

The number of applications to fix fair rents lodged with the Civil Bill Courts in the counties named, from the passing of the Act of 1887 to the 30th June 1896, was 7,446; and the number of such applications lodged with the Land Commission in the same period and from the same counties (exclusive of cases transferred from the Civil Bill Courts) was 27,286.

rose to move to omit Sub-section (c).

rose to Order. He wished to know whether the following Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gal way (Mr. Pinkerton), ought not to come first.

["to leave out Sub-section (c), and to insert,—To a tenancy in a holding ordinarily termed a town park adjoining or near to any city or town which had a population according to the census of one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one of over two thousand inhabitants, unless where the holding is used substantially as an ordinary farm whether agricultural or pastoral or partly agricultural and partly pastoral."

I think not. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Galway is really drafted in an improper form, because it proposes to leave out a sub-section of the Bill in order to insert another sub-section almost identical with that proposed to be left out.

moved the omission of Sub-section (c).

The hon. Member for Cork City is entitled to move the omission of the whole sub-section (c), and upon that Amendment he is entitled to support it on the ground that it ought to be omitted from the Bill, or on the ground that he has an alternative scheme to suggest. If the omission were carried, then an alternative scheme could be submitted. The words I should have to put if the hon. Member for Cork moves his Amendment, are the first words of the subsection, in order to permit subsequent Amendments to be raised, supposing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork is not carried.

intimated that in order to raise the whole question he intended to move that sub-section (c) be omitted.

The Motion of the hon. Member for Galway City (Mr. Pinkerton), is to omit sub-section (c), and it is on the Paper.

The Motion of the hon. Member for Galway, although in form proposing to omit sub-section (c), yet is really a substitute for it, and proposes to re-enact ipsissimis verbis three-and-a-half lines of sub-section (c). Therefore, in my opinion, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Galway is not properly drafted. I have re-drafted it in such a way that he could move his Amendment after I put from the Chair the question that the first words of the sub-section stand part of the Bill.

On a point of order I would ask whether the hon. Member for Galway City is not entitled to move his Amendment to omit sub-section (c)?

That is my Amendment.

I think the form of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Galway City is irregular, and that it is not properly drafted. If the hon. Member for Cork City proposes simply to omit sub-section (c), he is in order, and he says that is what he intends to move. I call upon him.

said that if the distinction excluding town parks were removed, and the Commissioners and Land Courts were allowed to fix fair rents, giving the town clerks the same rights as those enjoyed by agricultural tenants, he would support the omission of the sub-section.

supported the omission of the sub section. He did not see why town parks should be treated differently from land elsewhere, and exempted from the operation of the Land Courts as to the fixity of tenure, fair rent, and free sale. He did not know what the landlord of a town park could want beyond his rent. Let this be fixed in view of the accommodation afforded and the contiguity of the land to the town. Nothing had caused greater litigation than town parks, and if they adopted the proposal of his hon. Friend they would avoid complicated and costly litigation, and prevent the injustice of the tenant, after improving his land, being evicted by the landlord whenever it suited the latter's convenience.

said he did not like many things in the sub-section. Words were introduced which seemed to reopen vast questions. Then the sub-section repealed what was deliberately put in by the Unionist Government in 1887—a proviso that rents should not be fixed with regard to town parks where the court might be of opinion that it might prevent the proper development of the town. Undoubtedly small advantages were given to the landlords in allowing the section to apply to cases where the tenant might reside on the holding or elsewhere. On the whole, he thought the law as it stood would be more satisfactory than the section as it stood, and unless he had an intimation from the Government that they would accept Amendments put down he should certainly vote with the hon. Member if he went to a Division. In regard to the application of the word "agriculture" in the Act of 1887—as ruled by the Courts—which it was proposed to remedy by this sub-section, he argued for the tenant in that case, and although it was clearly an oversight in the Act of 1887, he could not see, as a lawyer, how the Court could be supposed to remedy oversights in Acts of Parliament. He would suggest, if the Chief Secretary decided to accept the Amendment, which would leave the law as it stood, that the defect in regard to the application of the word "agricultural" should be remedied by a few words on Report.

said the ground on which differences of opinion existed on the Irish Benches was that they wanted to improve the Bill and to improve the existing law. ["Hear, hear!"] During the discussion on the Agricultural Rating Bill the Government found it impossible to define accommodation land, when they wanted not to exclude the English landlords and the English tenants from the benefit of the Measure; but in this Bill they defined accommodation land because they wanted to exclude the Irish tenants from its advantages. ["Hear, hear!"] If they admitted these town-park tenants to the benefits of the land legislation, landlords would not be prevented from getting a fair agricultural rent for such holdings on account of their proximity to town.

said that before 1870 the word "town park" was utterly unknown in Ireland, and it was inserted in the Act of that year for the benefit of the landlords, by enabling them to rob the tenants of the benefits of the compensation they would derive from the Measure. ["Hear, hear!"] If the Government did not consent once for all to include these town-park tenants, it was clear this Bill was arranged in the interests of the landlord section in Ireland, that the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench were mere puppets, and that the Irish landlords pulled the strings. [Cries of "Order!"]

asked whether, if this Amendment were accepted, its effect would be to sweep away the other Amendments to the sub-section on the Paper?

If the Amendment were adopted, I should take it to mean that the Committee had decided not to deal with town parks in this Bill, and therefore all the other Amendments on the Paper would fall to the ground.

said that raised a very serious difficulty, inasmuch as they were now constrained to raise the question of accommodation tenants or lose the opportunity of raising that issue. He was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University would support the Amendment.

said that if the Amendment were carried and the Repeal Section in the Schedule was not altered, the effect would be that town parks would be fully admitted to the Land Acts. He asked whether, if the Amendment was carried, the question of accommodation tenants could not be raised on the Repeal Section.

on the point of order, said that, as he understood the matter, if the Amendment were accepted, and the Bill were allowed to stand exactly as it was, a change would take place in the law. Town parks would be included in the Land Acts, and might have fair rents fixed. That result would be obviated by moving to omit certain words of the subsection, and if those words were omitted town parks would be in the same position they were in now. Following up the questions which had been put from the other side, he would ask whether it would not be in order on the Schedule to discuss whether or not the law should remain as it was, or, in the alternative, that town parks should be included in the operation of the Land Acts; but that, on the other hand, it would not be competent to discuss the various Amendments on the Paper in regard to this sub-section?

It is perfectly obvious that on the Schedule it would not be possible to discuss fresh provisions in regard to town parks. The only question would he whether this particular sub-section applying to town parks should be repealed or allowed to remain. It would not he possible to propose fresh conditions, such as extent, value, and matters of that sort, as regards town parks.

said he thought that what the Chairman had said made it clear that, if the Amendment were carried standing alone, it would have the effect of putting town parks exactly on the same footing as any other holding to which the Land Acts applied. It would be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment in that sense, and if it were accepted it would be a necessary corollary that they should afterwards move to omit those conditions and repeal the Schedule which dealt with town parks in the existing Acts. It would be also necessary to omit Clause 5, which was intimately connected with the present sub-section. He did not disguise from the House that personally he should regret that this sub-clause should be left out. It had been very carefully considered, and it would bring within the operation of the Land Acts a certain number of tenants who were at present excluded from them. Under the existing law agricultural was held to exclude pastoral, and the Government proposed to insert pastoral in order that it should be made clear that, if town parks were held to be used as agricultural or pastoral farms, they should be brought within the provisions of the Acts. There was another point. By a clause in the Act of 1887, it was provided that where a holding which would otherwise be a town park was not used as an ordinary agricultural farm, it was not to be included within the benefit of the Act if, in the opinion of the Court, its inclusion would substantially interfere with the specific character of the farm.

I have not known a single case of exclusion for that reason.

said that he believed there had been cases. The Government believed that the clause would include a number of tenants who would otherwise be excluded. But if it were no I approved by those in whose behalf it was immediately designed, nor by the landlords, then the Government would withdraw it, subject to the conditions which he had named.

said that the right hon. Gentleman had fairly admitted that the only benefit of his clause over the existing law was to admit pastoral tenancies; and there were no pastoral town parks, because no holding above 15 or 20 acres would be held to be a town park. What were the disadvantages of the clause? It struck away the enormous protection of the existing law as to townsmanship. The Lords rejected the Amendment moved by the Unionist Government putting a limit of 2,000 to towns, and that limit would not now operate, because the landlords had served notice to quit on the tenants, and converted the holdings into future tenancies. It was far better to let the law stand in its present form than to accept the clause of the right hon. Gentleman amended by the hon. and learned Member for Trinity College.

said that as a layman he was incapable of understanding this Bill, which had been drafted by lawyers for lawyers. No one who was not a member of the legal profession had praised the Bill; and of course Irish lawyers were enamoured of it, because it would prove a fruitful source of litigation. It was most necessary that a limit should be introduced in the definition of a town, in order that the Sub-Commissioners might have a standard of measurement. In the superior Court there was Mr. Justice Bewley giving one definition, and Mr. Commissioner O'Brien giving another. Legally, there were no villages in Ireland now, because the Commissioners decided that every two or three houses constituted a town. In the Act of 1887, a limit of 2,000 in the population was moved by the present Leader of the House, but the Amendment was negatived in the Lords, and, when the Bill came back to the Commons, the right hon. Gentleman actually made a speech in favour of the rejection of his own Amendment. The landlords required to be protected in the matter of town parks as much as the tenants.

said that he could not support the Amendment, for he found that its result would be to leave the law as it stood. The people of Ireland were profoundly discontented with that law in relation to town parks, and there would be great disappointment and anger in Ireland if the Irish Party allowed this opportunity to pass without expressing the sense of the injustice done to the holders of town parks. If there was a question on which the Government might have been expected to meet the Irish Members half way it was this question. Their demand that the limit should be fixed at 2,000 was a very modest one. All the inquiries which had been directed to this part of the law had agreed in condemning it as promoting endless litigation. As long ago as 1886 the Cowper Commission reported unanimously that the doctrine of town parks should not be applied to any towns with a population of less than 5,000. On no point was the Land Acts Committee—the last great Inquiry on this question—stronger than on this subject of town parks. The Land Acts Committee recommended that "no place be considered a city or town within the meaning of the subsection, excluding town parks, unless it has a population over 2,000." Having quoted further from the Report of evidence of that Committee, he said he thought a population limit of 2,000 would afford protection and relief to a very large body of town-park holders in Ireland. It would be still better, of course, if the Government could see their way, to do away with the exclusion of town parks altogether—["Hear, hear!"]—but that was probably more than could be expected from them. He could not accept the view that the law as it stands was satisfactory or anything approaching satisfactory. The effect of the Amendment would be to leave the law as it stood, and consequently to prevent the discussion of questions which were raised by the Amendments now on the Paper as to population limit and other matters, and he certainly could not support the Amendment. He had received numerous communications from Ireland on the subject. One from Irvinestown, co. Fermanagh, which had a population of 800 or 900, referred to the exclusion by the Chief Land Commission, on appeal of a number of tenants in the neighbourhood. He claimed that an opportunity should be given for bringing forward the case of town parks. It was extremely desirable that Ulster Members should have an opportunity of recording their votes one way or other on the question of population limit.

submitted that the practical question was whether the existing state of the law, plus the removal of the grievance of agricultural and pastoral, was not better than the law would be if the new clause in its entirety were passed, and, in addition, the withdrawal of the 5th Clause altogether. To his mind it was perfectly clear that would be a better state of things from the point of view of the tenant, and therefore he was entirely in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork. He did not understand or sympathise with the attitude of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Dillon). The hon. Member was perfectly right in claiming an opportunity of raising the grievance of the town-park tenants, and pointing out the inadequacy of the present law. The hon. Member complained that he had no opportunity of stating their case. Why, he had been stating it for the last 20 minutes—[Ministerial cheers and laughter]—and had been fortifying his statement by quotations from the Report of the Committee with which every Member was perfectly familiar, because the Report had been quoted ad nauseam, and had further fortified his statement by quotations from some of his numerous correspondents in Ireland. In other ways he could raise the question; he could raise it by any number of new clauses; and, if he said they would never reach the stage when the new clauses could be discussed, that was a matter which largely rested with himself. [Ministerial cheers.] It was sincerely to be hoped that as time passed on the hon. Member would be less prodigal of his quotations and eloquence. [Ministerial cheers.] There was another reason why he was in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork, and that was that it would undoubtedly facilitate the progress of the Bill.

said that if he believed this Amendment would facilitate the progress of the Bill without doing any injury to other changes in the Land Law which he desired to see, he would support it; but as far as he could make out they should be debarred in fact from the most convenient way of discussing the question of town parks, and, therefore, he was not disposed to vote for the course the hon. Member recommended. It was no use their facilitating the progress of the Bill unless the Committee had had a good opportunity of discussing the questions of town parks. He submitted that the regular course for discussing the question of town parks would be to allow this clause to go on in the ordinary way. Then the hon. Member for Cork could move his Amendment, and also the Amendment for dealing with the limit of population. This was an unfortunate way of raising the question so as to enable the House to see the various objections to the law as it stood and the merit or demerit of the various proposals which hon. Gentlemen had put on the Paper. The Committee would be much deceived if it was not alive to the fact that there were few points in the Bill which excited more lively interest in land reform in Ireland than the question of town parks, and there was no question which excited a livelier interest in Ulster, which was particularly affected. There was an enormous quantity of evidence before the Commission from the North of Ireland, especially by Lord Justice Fitz-Gibbon and Mr. Justice Bewley, to the effect that legislation on the question of town parks was not necessary. The plain effect of this Amendment would be to damage and prejudice a discussion which was so important in connection with the various changes to be made in the Town Park Provisions of 1881 and 1887.

said that nothing which had been urged had changed his view as to the importance of the Amendment he had moved. No one was more anxious than he was that the various questions affecting town parks raised from time to time should be fully discussed, but it would be an expensive price to pay if the consequence was that after the discussion was over this clause remained part of the Bill. That was a risk which he was not prepared to take.

asked, on a point of Order, whether, supposing this clause were rejected and the Amendment carried, would it be in Order to reintroduce a clause containing the Amendments which his hon. Friend proposed as a new clause, or would not the Committee be considered to have decided the question.

I think it is clear that the best place to decide the questions as to the size of the holding, the population of the towns, and so forth is upon the sub-section the Committee is now discussing. [Cheers.] I am not prepared to say that the matter cannot be raised by a new clause.

maintained that the remarks of the Chief Secretary had entirely altered the position of affairs in his judgment.

rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

said that no doubt several members from Ulster wished to speak on this important question, which was looked upon with great anxiety in that part of Ireland. He drew attention to the alterations of the town population limit—first at 10,000, next to 5,000, and finally the compromise of 2,000—and recalled a declaration made by the First Lord of the Treasury when Chief Secretary, in 1887, to the effect that the Government were distinctly of opinion that where land was used as accommodation land it should remain one of the exceptions of the Land Act of 1881. The right hon. Gentleman added that the effect of the definition had been in certain cases to exclude from the operation of that Act holdings which were truly farms, and the Government did not wish to exclude what were really and truly farms from the Act of 1881. Were the tenants in these circumstances to be content with less than what the Government intended to give them in 1887? Though he could not support the Amendment, he hoped that their votes would not be misunderstood. [Ironical cheers.]

protested against the attempt which was being made to kill the Bill—[laughter and cheers]—to kill it, not on its merits, but simply because it was a Tory Bill. It was well known that the Opposition desired to hinder this Bill from becoming law, not because they believed it would benefit the farmers of Ireland, but because, if it did not become law, it would injure the Government and the Tory Party. [Ministerial cheers.] He supported the Bill and emphatically protested against attempts to kill a Measure which was likely to do some good to the farmers of Ireland. He was not prepared to join in those attempts simply to please the Liberal Party who when in office did nothing for the farmers and did not want the Tories to do anything for them.

observed that the hon. Member for East Clare had shown the House that his first object was to support the Tories. This question of town parks was a burning question in Ulster. He would have supported the Amendment if an assurance had been given by the Government that the section dealing with town parks in the Schedule A would be repealed if the Amendment were agreed to. But they had given no such assurance. On the contrary, they had been told that that section would not be repealed. Therefore, if the Amendment were carried, they would have no opportunity this Session of amending the law relating to town parks. He saw no reason why fair rents could not be fixed in the case of town parks without doing injustice to the landlords. Power might be given to the landlords to resume the land if it should be required for building purposes. There ought to be no exclusion of town parks, but if there must be exclusion there ought to be some definition of the term "town." The Cowper Commission recommended that the limit of population should be 5,000, and a limit of 2,000 had been adopted by that House for some purposes. Mr. Justice Bewley, the Chief of the Land Commission, had said that the adoption of a population limit was the only expedient that he could devise. The state of the law in regard to town park's in Ireland was a scandal. There was the case of Dundrum. A special commission decided that Dundrum was a town; Mr. Justice Bewley reversed the decision and decided that it was not a town. That decision was in its turn reversed, but finally the Court of Appeal decided that Dundrum was not a town. Some guidance ought to be given to the Land Commissioners in these cases, so as to enable them to protect tenants against robbery. The law as to town parks enabled landlords to put their tenants on the rack. In the circumstances he could not face his constituents if he were to vote for this Amendment.

moved to leave out paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1). It was, he said, the opinion of himself and friends that it would be very much better if the law relating to pastoral holdings were left as it was rather than that it should be amended as suggested in this sub-section. He contended that no reason had been shown why the figure of £50 should be raised to £100, or why Parliament should extend the principles of the Act of 1881 and give further concessions and advantages to the tenants than were given under that Act. In his view, the Land Act of 1881 went a great deal too far. Whilst he, and those who acted with him, did not desire in any way to disturb or take away anything which the Act of 1881 intended to confer upon the tenants, at the same time they objected to any extension of that Act, and it was because the sub-section gave such an extension that he moved its omission.

declined to accept the Amendment, the effect of which would be to exclude from the Land Act all pastoral holdings of £50 a year and under, and to abolish the test of residence in every case of pastoral holdings. The Committee were probably aware that this provision had been inserted to carry out the suggestion made by Mr. Justice Bewley. The reason for the change in the law was this. The Act of 1881 excluded from its advantages large graziers, who were a distinct class. But there had undoubtedly been in Ireland, in consequence of the changes in agricultural conditions, a tendency towards an increase in the number of fanners who belonged strictly to the same class as those who farmed tillage land, and it seemed to him only fair, after the change in the agricultural conditions, that they should no longer insist upon the exclusion of a body of men who practically belonged to the same class as those whom the Act was intended to benefit. ["Hear, hear!"] He would point out that, if the Amendment were carried, dairy farms would be excluded from the operation of the Measure. He believed that dairy farms never had been excluded from the operation of the Land Acts, and he could hardly believe his right hon. Friend seriously desired to import so large a change as would be involved in his Amendment, as regarded dairy farms. It was necessary to make clear in the Bill that such farms were not to be excluded from its advantages, and although they had not hitherto been excluded there seemed to be some doubt as to the interpretation of the law. The Government thought that the extension from £50 to £100 was desirable, having regard to the change in agricultural conditions generally, and he did not think that, coupled with the further provision in the Bill that the tenant must either reside upon his holding or else upon a holding subject to the Land Act, there was any fear that the amendment of the law which would be effected by the sub-section would lead to the inclusion of a class of men whom it was the intention of the Act of 1881 to exclude. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that two years ago one of the Members of the Land Commission (Mr. Justice Bewley) spoke of raising the limit, and he declined to give any reason. The Government wanted to disturb the settlement made under the Bill of 1881 for no reason that he could conceive. The ground on which, mainly, Mr. Gladstone based the justice of the Land Bill of 1881 was that there was in Ireland a vast number of tenants who could not themselves, without the assistance of legislation, come to fair and equitable terms with their landlords. That was the basis of the Land Act of 1881, and the limit was placed at £50 because Mr. Gladstone and his Government felt that above that amount tenants were perfectly able to take care of themselves. In no sense of the word did holders of pasture farms resemble the small tenants for whom the Act of 1881 was passed He could not conceive why the Government should deliberately elect to change the law without any reason whatever, except that the late Government proposed to fix the limit at £200 and the present Government thought they would make a compromise by fixing it at £100. He protested against the raking up of the settlement of 1881. He had regarded this Bill as a supplementary Measure to rectify any faults or defects that might he found in the Act of 1881 and not to introduce any new principles. The Government seemed willing to accept Amend merits from the other side of the House but not from their own side. He hoped that before the Bill took its final shape the law as it stood would be maintained and that the proposed interference with it, for which no valid reason had been given, would be rejected by Parliament. He trusted that those English Members who sympathised with justice and the rights of property would support him and his friends in the Division. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he hoped the Government had not absolutely made up their minds on this question. When this Bill was introduced it was stated that its main object was to elucidate questions not foreseen when the Act of 1881 was passed. This particular clause, at any rate, did not come within what was stated to be the object of the Bill. When it was considered that the alteration proposed by the section—which Irish Unionists so strongly objected to—was to raise the limit of £50 to £100, one could hardly understand why the Government should think it necessary to enact a section of the kind as against many of their own supporters which could not affect any considerable number of tenancies in Ireland. Why were the tenants of pasture land excluded from the Act of 1881 at all? It had always been stated that the tenants who hold grazing farms stood on an entirely different footing from the ordinary farmer who resided on his holding and who lived simply by the cultivation of it. Many of the holders of these grazing farms were not farmers in the ordinary sense, but cattle-dealers in England, and others, who were just as well able to take care of themselves as the landlord or any other person. Let him examine the reasons given by the Chief Secretary for this section. The first reason was that since the Act of 1881 a large number of farmers had turned their holdings into grass. In those cases the section would not apply. The Chief Secretary forgot that the words of his section referred to holdings which were let for use. He gave another and said that if the Amendment were carried it would put out the words of the section "other than a holding let to be used wholly or mainly for a dairy farm." That was an exception which he did not know of as being in any other of the previous Acts. Then he said that the Courts had held that dairy farms were to be within the Act. If that were so all he could say was that it was a pity that in a Bill which they had only a short time to discuss he should enact a law which he said already existed.

said that what he stated was that there was a doubt about that, but, as a matter of fact, they had always been allowed.

said that if they had always been allowed he did not know where the doubt came in. There was one other reason. When Mr. Justice Bewley was examined he was asked his view as to the limit, and he said he thought it might be raised from £50 to £100. He gave no reason, and the Government had not invented one. It came to this. Each successive Government thought it necessary from time to time to bring in a Bill dealing with the Irish land question, and, no matter how the law might have been settled, to take a small slice of what remained to the landlord. ["Hear, hear!"] It was part of the everlasting attempt to make peace in Ireland by giving sops to one party at the expense of another. He hoped his hon. Friend would go to a Division, and that many Irish Members who asked for a reason for what the Government were doing would, unless a satisfactory one was given, support Irish Unionist Members in this matter.

moved, in paragraph (a), Sub-section (1), after the words "to a tenancy in a," to insert the words "crag or mountain farm or." In the barony of Burrin in the county of Clare there were a number of crag farms so called because of the number of rocks and boulders they contained—which were not let to be used for the purposes of pasture, but which had been excluded from the benefits of the Land Act of 1881, because the House of Lords held on appeal that though there was no specific agreement that they should be used for pasture, as the nature of the land rendered the use of the plough impracticable, they must have been, in the intentions of the parties, let to be used for pasture. That decision amounted to this—that because a man's farm was rocky, he must continue to be rackrented. A great deal was said about the settlement of 1881. Was it not a hard thing that the people of a whole barony in county Clare should be excluded from the benefits of the Land Act, because their farms were so full of stones that the plough could not be used on them? Many of the mountains in Ireland had been slowly reclaimed up almost to the top by spade labour; but there would never be any general mountain reclamation by the tenants unless they had some protection for their improvements. The Amendment was in favour of the poorest class of tenants.

said that as representing the district referred to, he could fully bear out what had been said. The Amendment was earnestly desired by large numbers of the poorest and most deserving of the tenant-farmers in Clare.

hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

thought the Amendment ought to be accepted, though some definition of its terms would be necessary.

regretted that the Government were unable to accept the Amendment. The words were quite vague; and it was not possible to define what was a "crag or mountain farm." By introducing the words as proposed, all crag farms would be excluded, no matter how large, and notwithstanding that they might have been let expressly for pasture. As to farms used for pasture, though without any express agreement to that effect, it had been decided that, in dealing with lettings before 1881, it was necessary to ascertain the use which the land was reasonably capable of being put to in order to discover the purpose of the letting. If the farm could not be used for anything but grazing, the conclusion was that the intention of the parties was to let the farm for grazing purposes.

said that the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the "intentions of the parties." Did anyone have any intention of being born in county Clare? [Laughter.] The men were born and brought up on crag land and found that they could not use the farms in any other way than for grazing. It was a natural disability; not any intention of the parties. But he was willing to modify his Amendment so as to exclude from it cases where there was a contract to use the farms for grazing purposes. The exclusion from the Act of these poor people all resulted from the decision of a Scotchman in the House of Lords. [Laughter.] He asked the Government to consider the matter before Report.

said that if the hon. and learned Gentleman knew the barony of Burrin he would understand the nature of crag farms. It was a monstrous injustice that, because the poor people who inhabited that immense and curiously-formed tract of country in Clare, could not plough the land, they should be excluded from fair rents.

thought that there was some hope of compromise. His hon. and learned Friend was willing to except cases where there was an express agreement to use the farm for pasture. It was of this barony of Burrin that it was said in Cromwell's time that there was not enough wood to hang a man, enough water to drown him, or enough earth to bury him.

said that his right hon. Friend had somewhat misinterpreted the meaning of the words he had used a short time ago, though he admitted that the words might have given some justification for the interpretation. He did not intend to convey that this question had been raised in the Courts, and that the Courts, by holding that certain holdings were let "mainly or wholly" for the purposes of pasture, had then overruled the effect of that decision on the ground that they were used as dairy farms. What happened was this. The landlords had, in a vast majority of cases, not raised any objection to holdings which were used as dairy farms being included within the benefits of the Acts, but the language which had been used, especially by Lord Fitzgerald, had given rise to the belief that if the law was strictly interpreted, and if the landlords did require the exclusion of farms on the ground that, as dairy farms had been dealt with before, it might be decided against the tenants of the dairy farms. He could hardly believe that his right hon. Friend, after thousands of cases of dairy farms had been allowed to come within the advantages of the Act should now wish to exclude them. His purpose in putting the words in the Bill was not to change the existing practice, but to mention it and to prevent it from being interfered with.

said that the case referred to with reference to dairy farms was not a case in which the contract was "wholly or mainly" for the purpose of pasture. Where they had an expressed contract limiting the use of land for the purpose of pasture, they would create tremendous difficulty by the introduction of those words, which were wholly inconsistent with the contract.

said he had heard the objection raised that land laid down for the purposes of pasture might, by the introduction of a single cow, be taken to be used for the purpose of a dairy farm. He thought that the words "wholly or mainly" in connection with a dairy farm absolutely precluded any such possibility.

said that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to ignore the fact that many dairy farms had been started in Ireland, and that it was a growing industry. Dairy farms ought to be protected by legislation in the same way as agriculturists.

said it seemed to him that a great deal could be said for the Amendment in principle, but he would like further time to consider it. The Amendment might be brought up on Report.

said that on this assurance he would withdraw the Amendment.

said that, supposing a tenant before the lease had himself laid down the land in pasture. A contract was then entered into between the landlord and tenant to make it a pasture letting. The Courts were to go beyond the lease and were not to construe it as pasture land. The Court would have to investigate the circumstances in which the lease was made, how far the landlord forced the lease on the tenant, and how far it was voluntary. The Amendment would open up a wide field for discussion.

said the Committee had already pretty fully discussed this Amendment. It was obviously a question of degree, but the object of the Government had been to include those tenants who ought to be included, having regard to the provisions of the Act of 1881. But the limit proposed was too high.

supported the Amendment, because the figure proposed had been settled upon by the Land Acts Committee.

appealed to the Chief Secretary to accept this reasonable figure of £200. It was, of course, an arbitrary figure, out having referred to the change which had taken place in the circumstances of the tenants in many parts of Ireland, he thought the valuation of £200 was reasonable.

said that if the Amendment were not accepted, tenants who ought to receive the benefit of this legislation would be excluded from it.

pointed out that if the Amendment were carried it would alter the existing law considerably. It was at present a condition that a tenant who wanted to have a fair rent fixed must reside in the holding or in an adjacent holding. The only innovation which was now proposed to be made was the condition that the adjacent holding must itself be a holding to which the Land Acts applied. He could not assent to the omission of the whole sub-section. The object of the Government was to make it clear and certain that those who were to receive the benefit of this legislation must really belong to the class of farmers. If the sub-section were omitted, occupiers of villa residences or in town houses might come in and claim the benefits of the Land Acts. That would lead to a good many cases of abuse. On the whole, the balance of argument was in favour of retaining the provision.

did not think that the Government really meant to go as far in the direction of exclusion as this subsection went. There was the case of holdings purchased under the Land Purchase Acts.

said that he would be willing to add to Paragraph (ii) of the sub-section the words "or on a holding which has been purchased under the Land Purchase Acts."

thought it would be best to leave the law as it stood at present. He did not believe that cases of abuse were likely to arise.

contended that no case had been made out for the concession asked for by the supporters of the Amendment.

said that it sometimes happened that a tenant held under two leases. A tenant holding a pasture farm valued at £100 would be admitted to the benefits of the Land Acts. Supposing, however, that under two leases, he held two pastoral holdings, valued respectively at £50, the holding on which he did not reside might be excluded by this provision. That exclusion could not be justified. It was common in some parts of Ireland for a man to have two leases for what was practically, and to all intents and purposes, one holding—two portions of land adjoining each other, and used for similar objects. The land was only separated by the fact of there being two leases. There was no physical division whatsoever between the land; but a farm being taken under one lease, the tenant might subsequently desire to extend his acreage, and for that purpose take up a quantity of land adjoining the original land. Now, although there might be no actual division of the portions of land, yet the bare fact of two leases being in existence would set up the artificial separation to which he had alluded. It would be unjust to exclude a man from the benefits of the Acts in regard to the particular portion of this land on which it might be said he did not reside.

opposed the Amendment.

said he understood that one of the objects of the Bill was to remove difficulties in the way of tenants getting a fair rent fixed, but he feared the clause, unless amended, would have an opposite effect. The sub-section, as it stood, would, under the existing state of the law, have the effect of depriving certain tenants of existing and vested rights they now enjoyed. He thought the Amendment should be accepted.

thought it was unnecessary, in any circumstances, to retain in the sub-section the words "to which the Land Law Acts apply," and suggested that the object of the subsection would be equally served if those words were omitted. If a man held a piece of land which, though really one, was divided technically by being held under two leases, and he resided on that land, surely, other conditions being observed, he should not be excluded from the benefits of the Acts. ["Hear, hear!"] The main object in view, he understood, was to meet the cases of persons who lived at a distance from their farms. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he did not think the words materially altered the intention of the Act of 1881, but he admitted that there were difficulties and complications in the matter. He suggested that the Amendment might be withdrawn, and that the next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tipperary, to omit the words referred to, be accepted.

moved in the same paragraph to leave out the words "to which the Land Law Acts apply."

said the Government were unable to accept the Amendment. He submitted that the law as it stood was in a satisfactory condition—namely, that this was one of the elements to be taken into consideration.

said the growing of hay was an agricultural operation. As he understood the matter, if a man meadowed the whole of his land and sold the hay, his farm would not be regarded as a pasture farm. Perhaps the better plan would be for his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, and to raise the question again on Report, when, no doubt, they would be able to satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman.

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

moved to omit Sub-section (2).

moved to omit Sub-section (3), on the ground that it was an absolutely new provision which would lead to litigation, which would undoubtedly injure the landlord, and which would not benefit any of the tenants for whom these Land Acts were intended. They had already provided in the same clause that if a holding was substantially agricultural or pastoral, it should come within the purview of the Land Acts. That was effected by the word "substantially" in paragraph (a) Sub-section (1). The words in this Sub-section were absolutely new in Irish legislation. The words "property" and "demise" were not used in Irish legislation. The word "holding" was used instead of "property." It was true that the word "demise" occurred in the Act of 1860, after the word "lease," but nobody had been able to say exactly what it meant. He had merely called attention to the wording of the clause in order to show that it was novel in character. It was clear from the language of the clause that the portion to be separated must be a substantial portion, otherwise it would have been dealt with at the commencement of the clause. He, however, did not understand what fraction of a property the framers of the clause intended should be dealt with. It was one of the disadvantages of the clause, as it was drawn, that it was impossible to discover whether the portion to be separated was to be a quarter, or a half, or any other fraction of it. When the portion of the property was separated, the Commissioners were to fix its judicial rent, and in the future it was to be deemed to be a separate holding. The clause as it stood was so palpably unjust that it could not be passed, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had placed upon the Paper an Amendment to it providing that the Commissioners should only divide the property in the event of such division not diminishing the landlord's interest. But to insert such an Amendment would render the clause absurd, and therefore the hon. Member for Louth had given notice of his intention to amend the proposed Amendment in such a way as would practically annul the Amendment. These two Amendments showed him all the difficulties to which the clause must necessarily give rise. Hon. Members must admit that the property could not be severed without injuring the landlord's interest. He confessed that he could see no ground at all for inserting this clause in the Bill. What reason was there for protecting persons who had taken tenancies which no English farmer would have taken? This clause would not benefit any ordinary tenant-farmer in Ireland, while it would be most unjust to the landlord. On these grounds he, with some confidence, asked the Committee to reject this clause.

said that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had taken a view of the clause that was not justified by its language. At the present time there were holdings that were excluded from the operation of the Land Acts by reason of their being included in some other property, and the clause proposed that in such cases the property should be separated in order that the holding might be dealt with by the Land Commissioners and a fair rent fixed. The Amendment he had placed upon the Paper provided that that should only be done in cases where the interest of the landlord would not be injuriously affected by the separation of the property. Unless very much stronger reasons were put forward for granting this concession, the Government must adhere to the words of the clause.

said it was very interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman defending this new real-property law which had been introduced by a Unionist Government. He was not surprised to hear that, as the result of their deliberation, the Chief Secretary had resolved not to accept the Amendment, but to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth. As far as he could see, the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind that the only Amendments he would accept were Amendments coming from that quarter of the House in which the hon. Member for Louth was sitting; but he had some hope that, since the right hon. Gentleman had conceded about six Amendments to the other side, the turn of the Unionists might come. Of all the comical sections ever put into an Act of Parliament, the section under consideration was the most comical. What did it pr pose to do? It proposed, in the first place, to give to the Land Commission in Ireland the power to separate into two holdings, under two different tenures, at two different rents, and with two entirely different attributes, what the landlord, by contract, had let as one holding. That, he ventured to say, was a very serious matter for the consideration of the Committee. But the clause went further than that. It allowed the tenant, when the holding had thus been split into two parts, to throw back on the hands of the landlord one part, while he reserved to himself the other part. But the really comical part of the clause was when they came to deal with the separation of the incorporeal hereditament from the corporeal hereditament. He would like to ask any lawyer in the House whether he had ever known a case in which the incorporeal hereditament was treated as an absolutely separate holding from the corporeal hereditament out of which it flowed. Suppose a landlord let the land with the shooting. This clause would enable the tenant to go into Court and say: "True it is that a substantive part of the property are the shooting rights which I have taken in the lands, but a more substantive part of the property is the land I hold, and I now call upon you so to treat these two hereditaments, corporeal and incorporeal, as to give me the land to hold in perpetuity under this Act, and also to give me the right of shooting only so long as I wish to keep it," A more comical result could hardly be conceived. Suppose the tenant were to say: "I shall pay the rent for the corporeal hereditament, but you may do what you like about your incorporeal hereditament. "The landlord would say: "I shall bring my action." The tenant would say: "All right;" but when the landlord came into the land there was nothing to seize. In the case of the land he could bring an ejectment, but what was to become of the incorporeal hereditament? He could imagine a landlord in Ireland searching in vain to find his incorporeal hereditament, and probably the only place where he would be able to find it would be in gremio legis. Again, suppose the case of a house valued at £90 a year, standing on land valued at £100 a year. Nobody ever dreamed that such a holding as that could be brought into the Land Court. But under this section the tenant might say: "I have got a house valued at £90 a year, and land valued at £100. My house is not agricultural or pastoral in its character; you must segregate the mansion from the land and fix a portion of the rent on the mansion. I will keep the land, and the landlord may come and let his house as best he can." That would be the result of this section. It would lay open a large vista of litigation in the Courts. It would enable anybody who had land of any kind to come into Court and say: "I am within this Land Act, and I can separate the holding into two parts, and I will hold one portion in perpetuity under the Land Act which has been passed by a Tory Government, and the landlord may do what he likes with the other." A more direct interference with the elementary principles of the rights of property had seldom been put forward, even by a Radical Government. He really did hope that the Government had not come there simply for the purpose of pacifying opposition on the other side, absolutely to refuse to consider every Amendment coming from their supporters, so that they might avoid the necessity of throwing up another Bill. It would be better far that there should be no Act of Parliament passed at all than that a Unionist Government should persist in passing an Act which was a direct interference with the most elementary principles of the rights of property.

said that the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman came to this—that if there was a holding, the whole of which was agricultural in its character, so long as there were half-a-dozen grouse on that holding it was to be excluded from the Land Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman had described the clause as a comical one. He did not think it was anything like so comical as the hon. and learned Gentleman's own argument. He hoped the Government would not give way on the point.

could assure the hon. Member who had last spoken that the Government had no intention of giving way upon this question. ["Hear, hear!"] There were in Ireland, and especially in the north, numerous cases where tenants had taken holdings, a very large and substantial part of which was agricultural, but at the same time they might have included in the letting either a mill holding or demesne land. This clause was designed to allow these men to go into court and get a fair rent fixed on what was really the substantial part of the holding—namely, the agricultural part. Under the present state of the law, no matter how small the part might be winch was non-agricultural in character—whether it be a portion of demesne land or mill holding, inasmuch as the holding in its entirety did not fall within the Act—the tenants were excluded from getting fairments fixed at all. The sub-section enabled them to go into court and get a fair rent fixed for that part which was agricultural and which was the substantial part of the holding, leaving in the condition they were before the remainder. His right hon. Friend the Member for the Dublin University selected the instance of a person with a large residential holding and 50 or 60 acres of land attached, and suggested that such a person might go into court, say his residence was not an agriculcultural holding, demand that his residence should be separated, and a fair rent fixed upon the portion of land he held. As to that argument, he thought it might be fairly urged that any Court would hold that this combined or entire letting was not an agricultural holding at all, but residential. But, even if the Court should hold it was not a residential holding, the Government had endeavoured to guard against injury which might be inflicted on the landlord by the Amendment introduced by the Chief Secretary providing that the separation should not take place where, because of it, the interest of the landlord might be diminished in some way other than the mere fixing of the rent. He submitted to the Committee that a grave defect existed, and that there were a number of tenants excluded from the Act who ought not to be, by reason of the fact that something that was not agricultural had been let to them along with the holding. It was most desirable they should be included, and no useful purpose could be served, or any good be done to the landlord, by excluding them. ["Hear, hear!"] It was, perhaps, possible that an occasional case might arise when some such extravagant and absurd conclusion as that which had been suggested by his right hon. Friend might be arrived at, but that was no reason why they should deny to the large class of tenants to whom he had referred that redress to which they were entitled. ["Hear, hear!"]