of the 11th instant, directing that cer- | subject. The necessity of the attributain carmen shall not be engaged by the tions of Departments cannot be consi military stationed at the Curragh for dered entirely isolated; but I may state having refused to give their cars to the generally that the subject shall be th police; whether the military authorities roughly examined during the Recess; claim the right not only to prevent cer- and before we meet again we expect ta tain persons from having access to the have our views ready for the adoption "stands" within the precincts of the and approval of the House. Camp, but also to prevent passage through the Camp by roads which are in all respects public roads; and, if so, under what statute; whether his attention has been called to the Curragh Camp Brigade Order, No. 8 (B), of the 11th instant, which says MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR said, he would have pleasure in putting down the Question for Monday; but as to 12 hours' Notice only having been given to the right hon. Gentleman to obtain the information sought, he begged to state that he had read the Notice in his place on Friday last. MR. CHILDERS: I appeal to the House whether the reading of such a Question can be regarded as an adequate Notice? Once it is seen on the Paper, I shall not be guilty of any delay. MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCE. MR. R. H. PAGET asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will be good enough to inform the House what progress has been made in the formation of the distinct Department for the Administration of the functions of the Executive Government relating to Agriculture and Commerce, in accordance with the Resolution which was unanimously agreed to by the House on 13th May last? MR. GLADSTONE: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has paid every attention to this Mr. Arthur O'Connor PARLIAMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-THE TRANSVAAL DEBATE SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH asked the First Lord of the Treasury Whether the Government had yet received the information they expected from Potchefstroom; and whether asy time could now be fixed for the Transvaal debate? Of course, there would be no objection to postpone the debate if it would be injurious to the Public Service; but the opportunity of challenging a most important part of the Colonial postponed for several weeks merely be policy of the Government should not be discussion in Committee of the Irish cause time could not be spared from the Land Bill. Why should it not come or tleman could not name a day, perhaps on a fixed day? If the right hon. Genhe would, at any rate, contradict a statement which had been made with some appearance of authority in the new after the conclusion of the Committee on papers, that it would not be taken until the Irish Land Bill. MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, there is no authority whatever for the statement No one was authorized to make such a which has appeared in the newspapers statement. We have received accounts, if not of the absolute and formal comof the measures taken in pursuance of pletion, at least the very near completion, what occurred at Potchefstroom. There fore, on the understanding, as I said before, that the debate is desired, we dɔ not wish to avoid it; but, with regard to the date, we shall be extremely desirous to finish the Committee on the Irish Land Bill. I will make this resapvation, however, that the debate shail take place at a convenient time of the Session, when the House will be able to attend in large numbers without any difficulty; and I make it on the assump tion and with the hope that we do not intend to spend many weeks on the further consideration of the Land Bil in Committee. Should that appear to be likely, it will be my duty to ask the it would have been impossible for the Government to have taken part in the discussion. House to adopt some measure to accolerate the proceedings. I do not give any pledge; but I hope the very, first available day after the conclusion of the Committee on the Irish Land Bill will LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL, CLAUSE 5 be given to the right hon. Gentleman. That will be in the interval which necessarily elapses between the Committee and the Report, consistently with the exigencies of Public Business. -£100 TENANCIES. SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY asked the noble Lord the Member for Calne, Whether he would state to the House what course he proposed to take with reference to his Amendment for the exemption of £100 tenancies from the operation of the Irish Land Bill? LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, this Question has been on the Paper since before the Easter Holidays. It is one of great importance. Already considerable time has been lost on the re- Sir, I have placed an Amendment on the presentation of the Government that it Paper upon Clause 5, relating to the is not convenient for the public interests £100 tenancies, proposing to exempt that it should be discussed. That reason them from the operation of the Bill. I is no longer in force, and I hope we wished by so doing to show that my own shall not be debarred from timely dis-opinion on the subject was unaltered; cussion on this matter. Even if it be impossible to finish the Committee on the Irish Land Bill as quickly as may be desirable, that need be no reason for setting aside a debate of the very highest importance on the Colonial policy of the Government. MR. GLADSTONE: I entirely agree to the fairness of what has just been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I feel the difficulty in which the House is placed by the extraordinary pressure of Public Business; and if a very long delay takes place I shall expect a renewal of the inquiry before the completion of the Land Bill in Committee. SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman, referring to the question to be discussed on Friday, stated that the Government had obtained the advantage of an important vote in the Army Estimates in consequence of the arrangement which had been come to. That was precisely the case with regard to this question. There has been no discussion at all. MR. GLADSTONE: The two cases are totally different. The pledge we gave with regard to the Military Estimates was in consideration of the House abstaining from discussion which might have been brought on at a given time, and which was withdrawn for the convenience of Public Business. But, as far as my recollection serves me, there has been no time at which the discussion on Transvaal affairs could have been taken without being positively injurious to Imperial interests. Members opposite might have discussed the question; but and I have reason to know that many hon. Members on this side of the House agree with me in regard to it. But, considering the condition of Public Business, and that the £100 tenancies are, probably without exception, included among those holdings managed upon the English principle, the exemption of which was brought a few days ago before the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), I do not propose again to raise the question of their exemption, considering that the Committee has already expressed its opinion about it. Should I desire again to touch the question, a fitting opportunity can, no doubt, be found on the Report upon a general survey of the provisions of the Bill. ARMY-THE VOLUNTEER REVIEW AT WINDSOR. MR. SCHREIBER asked the Secretary of State for War, What facilities would be given to hon. Members for seeing their constituents march past in the Volunteer Review in Windsor Park? MR. CHILDERS: The hon. Member has asked me a Question without Notice. The details of the arrangements for the Review at Windsor Park are not under my control; but my impression is that Members of the House will have to take their chance with the rest of the public. INDIA-COMMISSION OF INQUIRY. SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has considered the proposal to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, limited Clause 4 (Incidents of tenancy subas to area and subject, to take indepen-ject to statutory conditions). dent Native evidence upon certain questions in India; and, whether he is disposed to take a favourable view of such a proposal? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the proposal emanated from a body of British gentlemen whose opinions are entitled to the highest consideration. I am afraid I can hardly, within the limits of an answer to a Question, point out all the circumstances that have to be taken into consideration when a proposal such as this is made to appoint an independent inquiry. The Government of India had been carefully watching the matter; but attention to it was necessarily suspended till the conclusion of the war. I could not press them unduly in regard to an inquiry such as this. MR. BRODRICK, in moving, in page 5, line 5, after the word "landlord” ta insert the words "formally given," sail, that the Amendment was not altogether different from the Amendment wh: h was discussed at the close of the last Sitting on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport Mr. Warton), and which was sprung sil denly upon the Committee at a time when it was impossible to consider it thoroughly. He hoped that Her Ma jesty's Government would see that there was a real principle involved in it He had brought the Amendment fr ward with the view of preventing future litigation. The state of the law un the Bill would be simply this tat the tenant might get the leave of the landlord to sub-divide his holding LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL-COPY OF But it was desirable that there shoul THE BILL AS AMENDED. be no future difficulties as to the co MR. CALLAN asked the Prime Mi-sent of the landlord; and any future nister, If he will direct that a copy of the amended Land Bill should be placed in the Library for reference? difficulty might be avoided by having witnesses. It would then be impossitie for the landlord, or the landlord's sacMR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, cessor, to raise the question 10 or 12 that, having regard to the number and years afterwards, because the tenant importance of the provisions of the Land would have the power of calling a Bill, he thought it would be for the con-witness to show that the permission was venience of the House that a reprint of the first four clauses of the measure should be made, and it would be made accordingly, not under his directions, but under those of the authorities of the House; and, in addition to that, he hoped it would be found practicable to place in the Library a copy of the Bill showing the further alterations that were made from day to day, so that hon. Members might consult it. ORDERS OF THE DAY. 16061 LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.-[BILL 135.] COMMITTEE. [THIRTEENTH NIGHT.] Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) PART I. given to him. He would remind the Government that this provision woad only apply to a very small part of a holding, and that it was calculated to prevent unnecessary litigation. THE O'DONOGHUE said, he rose to a point of Order. He wished to ask if the same as that which had already been the Amendment was not substantially moved by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) and negatived by the Committee? THE CHAIRMAN: As I understand the Amendment already decided, it was that the consent should be given in writing. The words of the present Amendment are that the consent shall be "formally given;" and, therefore, there is a substantial difference. MR. BRODRICK said, the hon. Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue) forgot that the point now contended for was not that there should be a notice in writing of the consent of the landlord, but that there should be a notice of some kind, so as to prevent, 10 or 12 years afterwards, any contention that the ten ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES. ant had rightly exercised the permission Sir David Wedderburn given to him. He thought there should be some security for the tenant after the permission had been given. Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 5, after the word "landlord" to insert the words "formally given." (Mr. Brodrick.) MR. GLADSTONE: I must say that the Amendment already disposed of would be very much better than the one now proposed. I think it would be more satisfactory to provide that the consent of the landlord should be in writing than that it should be "formally given." But the position which we take up on this matter is that, if anything can be intrusted to the Court, it is perfectly plain that this is a power which it ought to exercise. There is a clause already in the Bill which I think the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) can scarcely have noticed-namely, Clause 42, page 24 of the Bill, in which it is provided, among other things, that the Court shall deal with the mode in which the consent on the part of the landlord, agent, or other persons, may be signified under the Act. MR. MACARTNEY regretted that the proposal made by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was not adopted the other evening, and hoped that the Government upon Report would be induced to re-consider the matter. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in Order. This question has already been decided by the Committee, and cannot be now re-opened. MR. MACARTNEY said, he only wished to say that there would be very great difficulty unless some plain and simple mode was devised of ascertaining whether the consent of the landlord had been given or not. Half-a-dozen witnesses might come forward and swear that the consent had been given, whilst the only witness who could prove that the consent had not been given might be dead. thought it was desirable that there should be some record of the mode in which the sub-division of a holding was given. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to point out that in Clause 42 the Court was to deal with the mode in which the consent on the part of the landlord, or his agents, or other persons should be signified under the Act; but he thought there ought to be some record in order to guide the Court, and he understood that that was the object of the present Amendment. As the Bill was now drawn, no provision was made for any record whatever of the consent of the owner to the sub-division of a holding. MR. GIBSON thought there was a great deal of force in what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said, and that it was quite fair that the power in this matter should be left to the tribunal to make rules upon. But he wished to point out that in most cases where the Court was to make rules the word " 'prescribed" was mentioned in the Bill; and, therefore, he thought there could be no objection to the words "consent of the landlord given in the prescribed manner." MR. GLADSTONE said, he saw no objection to the insertion of the words suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson). MR. BRODRICK said, that under these circumstances he had no objection to withdraw his Amendment. MR. WARTON thought that considerable danger would arise if they left too many things to the determination of the Court. He certainly knew that in some cases the provisions of the Judicature Act had been completely overruled by the rules laid down by the Court. He, therefore, did not think it desirable that everything should be left to be framed by rules, especially as it was most likely that they would see nothing of such rules until the middle of next year. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed, in page 5, lino to insert, after the word "landlord," the words "given in a prescribed manner."-(Mr. Gibson.) MR. CHAPLIN agreed that it would have been very much better to have accepted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. War-5, ton), which required that the consent of the landlord should be in writing. But, unfortunately, that proposal had been rejected by the Committee, and, as they could not have the best of two things, they must have the worst. He certainly MR. BIGGAR said, he rose to a point of Order. THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! There is really no Question before the Committee. An Amendment has been | the landlord and tenant should be per proposed by the right hon. and learned fectly clear, and that it should not give Gentleman the Member for the Univer- rise to any future litigation. The past sity of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) to insert, he wished to bring before the Committee after the word "landlord," the words was this-In the case of a future tea"in the prescribed manner." ancy where, owing to a rise of reLt. a Question proposed, "That those words statutory term was proposed and stati be there inserted." THE CHAIRMAN: I must inform the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that that Amendment was withdrawn, and it is now proposed to insert these words. tory conditions were imported, and the rise of rent being assented to by the tenant, what would be the state of the agreement between the landlord and the tenant? He assumed that there was no desire to take any advantage and the increase of rent agreed to. Was the original agreement betwers the landlord and tenant to remain in force, or was a new agreement to be made? This was a case which might be of frequent occurrence in the future, and it was of the utmost importance to have it inquired into now. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment The Amen! before the Committee. ment before the Committee is whether the words "in the prescribed manner" shall be inserted. especially where there were any arrange ments which were not consistent with the statutory conditions under the Bill. THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee at this moment is simply whether the consent of the landlord should be given to sub-letting "in the prescribed manner." The Question is that these words be here inserted. MR. BIGGAR said, the 42nd clause applied to rules which might be framed under the Bill for carrying the Act into effect. It seemed to him that the words "in the prescribed form" were not at all necessary. The practical result of MR. R. H. PAGET said, he was exintroducing these words would be that deavouring to draw attention to the every one of the conditions would be necessity for a legal definition of the arlikely to give rise to more or less liti-rangement between landlord and tenant, gation owing to some negligence in regard to a mere matter of form. In consequence, much practical injustice might be done. How was the tenant farmer to know what was the nature of the forms prescribed by the Land Court in a matter of this kind? The farmer went to his landlord, and the landlord said, in direct terms-"I give you leave to divide your holding." The tenant would, very naturally, go and do so, and the landlord might afterwards say "True, I gave you verbal consent, but I did not do it in the prescribed form; and I will, therefore, take advantage of that fact." This clause gave the landlord the power of entirely destroying the tenant's interest in the holding simply because he had acted contrary to some stipulation contained in the Bill, and of which stipulation he was entirely ignorant. He, therefore, thought that the Government would do well not to agree to this Amendment. MR. R. H. PAGET said, he had a question to put upon this point which he thought was one of very considerable importance. It was of the highest importance that any arrangement between The Chairman MR. P. MARTIN said, he objected to the introduction of these words. He thought they were highly objectionable. The words "written consent" were words everyone understood; but the Committee had already negatived these words, and he trusted that they were not going now to add the words in the prescribed form." It must be recollected that this prescribed form was a form which it was wholly impossible that the tenant should know, unless he was ac quainted with the rules which might be laid down by the Land Commission; and under circumstances of this charac ter there might be a Common Law forfeiture of the tenant's interest by reason of his ignorance of some form which the Land Commission might prescribe. He trusted that the Committee would not |