the Prime Minister as to the regulated tenant right, taken in connection with the subsequent statements that had been made showing that the tenant right was to be an altogether unregulated onethe Court having to settle the value of the tenant right in every case. If that was the case, it was an additional reason why estates managed on the English principle should be altogether excluded from the operation of the clause under discussion. He was told that the members of the Land League were not particularly anxious that the Bill should pass; but if it did pass, he thought it not improbable the League would advise all the tenants to go into Court at once, for the purpose of getting a judicial rent-applications the hearing and deciding upon which would occupy from 10 to 15 years at the least-with the additional piece of advice that they should pay no rent at all until the amount had been fixed. The argument as to the right of assignment under the Common Law by yearly tenants, if true, would apply with equal force to tenants holding under similar tenures in this country. He thought there ought to be some clear definition of the meaning of the words of the Amendment. It applied to tenancies "Which have heretofore been maintained and improved by the landlord or his predeces sors in title." as he understood it. It was meant to protect the property of one man by providing that his property should not be made the asset of another. In that sense his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works had made a very great point by saying that the Amendment was superfluous, because he stated there were no estates in Ireland which, properly speaking, were managed on the English system. That statement he disputed entirely, partly on his own knowledge, partly on information derived from persons thoroughly acquainted with the matter, and also on the words of the Prime Minister. If there were no English-managed estates in Ireland, why, he asked, were sub-sections introduced into the 7th clause to except Englishmanaged estates from the operation of the Bill? said— Sub-section 8, Clause 7, under this section in respect of any tenancy, "Where an application is made to the Court the Court may, if it think fit, disallow such ap plication where the Court is satisfied that the holding in which such tenancy subsists has theretofore been maintained and improved by the landlord.' He could not suppose that in drafting the Bill a sub-section would have been introduced guarding a class of estates if that class of estates had never existed. In respect of that sub-section he pointed out that the Amendment of his right Did those words mean that in the case hon. Friend was precisely in conformity of a holding on an estate of 50,000 acres, with the spirit which had dictated it. where the landlord had maintained all The sub-section said that the Court or any of the improvements, the effect might disallow the application in the of the Amendment would be vitiated by case in question; and the Amendment the tenant having erected half-a-dozen said that the discretion of the Court, in pig-sties? To make the meaning per- estates referred to where they did exist, fectly clear some words were still neces- might be excepted from the operation sary; and, with that proviso, he was will- of the clause. It had been said by the ing to give the Amendment his support. hon. and gallant Member for Cork MR. CARTWRIGHT said, that hav-County (Colonel Colthurst) that such ing listened with the greatest possible attention to the speeches of the Prime Minister and the First Commissioner of Works, and with every disposition to be convinced by them, he felt bound, nevertheless, to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. The arguments which had been adduced against his hon. Friend's proposal were, in his opinion, beside the mark, one of them being that it struck at the right of absolute freedom of sale. But he ventured to say that this was not within the four corners of that proposal, Mr. Chaplin estates existed, but that their number was infinitesimal, and that it was not worth while to legislate for them. He disputed that, and said if only one landlord in Ireland had invested his money in improving his land, those improve ments ought not to be made the asset of another. Take the case of an estate where the landlord had made those im provements at his own cost. He wished to know what protection existed in the Bill, as it stood at present, for a landlord in this position? There was none whatever; and, therefore, it was neces sary to introduce an Amendment like the present in order to secure to the landlord his property. If they did not secure the landlord who managed his estates on the English system in the way proposed, there was only one modus operandi left to him, which the Attorney General for Ireland had so often alluded to, and that was to raise his rents. In no other way could he protect himself against loss. But could anything be more odious and more likely to expose landlords in Ireland to obloquy than that in order to secure themselves against loss they should be obliged to threaten to raise the rents of their tenants? The 56th paragraph of the Report of the Bessborough Commission stated that it would be odious to impose on the landlords, who were improving landlords, the necessity of covering themselves against loss by the raising of rent. Another testimony which he wished to bring forward in support of the fact that there were such landlords in Ireland was contained in a passage of the speech of the Prime Minister on the second reading of the Bill, in which the right hon. Gentleman said that happily the improving landlords in Ireland were many. Believing that the Amendment was one which simply meant to introduce a Proviso by which landlords, who had themselves sunk money in improvements for which they had not recouped themselves, could bring their case before the Court and be able, in a legitimate manner, to recover their outlay without going through the odious process of raising their rents, he should give it his cordial support. MR. RODWELL said, as the Amendment he had placed upon the Paper was of somewhat similar character to the present, and as he apprehended, when they arrived at it, he would only be able to move it in a mutilated form, he therefore took the opportunity of stating the reasons that induced him to give his entire support to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. Although he should confine himself strictly to the point of free sale of tenant right he did not think one could entirely overlook the circumstances and causes that had led to the introduction of this Irish Land Bill, because it seemed to him that, although the Prime Minister wished to narrow the issue rather unfairly, as he thought, to his hon. Friend opposite, yet, at the same time, regard must be given to the general scope of the Bill and the effect that this clause would have upon the landlord as it stood. This Bill was called into existence for the purpose of preventing some landlords in Ireland from indulging their cupidity by preying on the greed for land that existed among the tenant class in Ireland. That was one of the objects of the Bill. The other was to prevent the exercise of the right of eviction in a manner capricious and hard to the tenant. But the fact that had a great bearing upon the point under discussion was that of improvements. The whole difficulty had arisen from the fact that improvements in Ireland had been carried out rather by the tenant than by the landlord. Now, Clause 1 as it stood would at once constitute a partnership between the landlord and the tenant directly this Bill was passed, and it would affect good, bad, and indifferent landlords alike. Whether the landlord had been performing his duties with generosity, or the reverse, whether the improvements were his or the tenant's, the moment the Bill was passed the tenant would have a right to something which, at the moment, he did not possess. What that " something" was nobody yet had been able to discover. It was not a corporeal hereditament nor an incorporeal hereditament, and it seemed to him peculiarly an Irish hereditament, and he very much questioned whether this "something" could be worth very much, assuming that the improvements had been carried out by the landlord. It was perfectly fair and right that when this partnership was forced on the landlord by the admission of the tenant that the tenant should have the perfect right of selling his portion of the capital, which was the value of improvements he had made in the soil; and he was perfectly willing to admit that in many instances the share of the tenant far exceeded that of the landlord in his partnership. But there were cases in which the tenant contributed no capital at all, and those cases the Amendment was intended to meet; and the question was whether the tenant, who was only nominally in partnership with the landlord, was to have the same rights, and to be put in the same position, as the tenant who had contributed to the partnership by his improvements in the landlord's property. "In the same extent that you convey a right of ownership to the occupier po trato yon diminish the rights of the lan i: wher.” That was the question. He did not time in the discharge of important suppose anyone would imagine that had duties he had not been able to read it not been for the improvements, the evidence produced by either of the which somebody had called the "lamb," Commissions which sat, because if in and this something, the "mint sauce,' that evidence there was one thing clearer that there would be the right to sell the than another, it was that there were "mint sauce" without the lamb," or in many parts of Ireland estates that that there would have been any mint were managed upon the English system. sauce." Without this Amendment a Whether he meant managed by Englishgreat injustice would be done to the men or not he did not know; but, beyond landlord who, for years past, had dis- doubt, there were in this litter of recharged his duties in a way probably ports" cases he would not mention satisfactory to his tenant, and who, names-where estates were managed on having done the improvements himself, the English system; and the most promigave the tenant no right to claim any-nent distinction was drawn between the thing. He had said this "something" English and the Irish system, between the was indefinite; but there was a remark-relations of landlord and tenant in one, able expression in the Report of the and the relations of landlord and tenant Bessborough Commission which con- in the other. It was admitted also-he veyed to his mind the feeling of the did not quote the language used, for Commission that unless the tenant had everyone knew it-by the Prime Mi contributed something, you would, by nister, and Sir Roundell Palmer, the this clause, do an injustice to the land- present Lord Chancellor, that the system lord, because the Commission said- introduced by the Land Bill of 1870 was not applicable to England, because the relations between landlord and tenantin England were different to the relations That was a sound proposition. What existing in Ireland. The Prime Minister the "something" was he did not know; had, in this particular, put the point there was nothing specific or real, but fairly; and the question now was, whether the improvements in the soil and the any difference was to be made in the cases same rights should not be extended to where estates were managed according the tenant who had not, as to the tenant to the English system from those in Irewho had, carried out all the improve and which were not so managed? Ani ments himself. Looking at the whole he thought, using the language the right scope of the Bill he saw no ground hon. Gentleman had employed on that for the opposition to the Amendment of previous occasion. if it could be shown that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, there were in Irelani estates managed He bad listened with great attention to on the English system, then those estates the speech of his right hon. Friend the should be exempted from the operativa -First Commissioner of Works, who was of Clause 1. Dit was right that estates a great authority, or was supposed to managed on this side of St. George's be, on this Irish Land Question and he Channel in a peculiar manner should must confess he thought that speech was betreated in a particular way, whyshond most disingennvas, and for this reades, perhaps belinging to the same He said the power of assigning inner. in the other ste A St. George's England was the same as the pote of assigning in Ireland. Now, he Mr. Rodwell Wald venture to dispute that In England, s Innbt, there was power of assigning; there was a certain freedom of ostract; but in Ireland that po was barred. The cases were not paralle between the right to assign in and in Ireland and his righ ecovered an error in his expressi. to the use oondition of things in England and in Ireland. The right bus. Geode man made another statement which showed that during the calls upon his annel animan aged in the same way, be treated Interativ? Could it be said that was impossible to mirodne an ase ? Why, besvali The Amend the bin. Member didit. Was 14 dura as a principle that ere a teman: had made imPROTEGRACES, OP where he had ocntributed the farm of which he was out? pin berely had maits and privi 24 MOANA F1) contributed ing raid have the same rights and privleges གམ He will at imm▼ such an argument at all. It appeared | in a judicial speech by one conversant to him that the whole thing hinged on the question of improvements; and if there were no tenant's improvements, then it was a hard thing that the landlord should be subjected to the operation of the clause. He found fault, again, with the Chief Commissioner of Works when he said that landlords did not object to this; and here, again, it was evident he had not read the Report of the Bessborough Commission, for it was distinctly stated, on page 59, that landlords could get over fixity and fair rents, but they did not like free sale, though it was an argument in its favour and made palatable to landowners as affording agents a means of securing arrears of rent, and that it made things easy and pleasant. This was stated plainly, and the Chief Commissioner would find abundant evidence from the Bessborough Commission that it was a matter landlords especially disliked. Mr. Kavanagh, one of the Commissioners, in his Report, writing on the subject of Free Sale, said he entertained no dislike to the extension of this right to his own property, for evidence had convinced him that it conferred more advantage to the occupier than disadvantage to the landlord. So far, that was contrary to his (Mr. Rodwell's) argument; but Mr. Kavanagh went on to say he would be glad to see the power extended, "if it can be justly done." The question, then, was whether this was "justly done" or not. Then the Report, proceeding on the assumption that the improvements were the tenant's making, went on to say— "That as it would be for the general advantage of the country, the landlord would be content to make some sacrifice to attain it." Where all the improvements were made by the tenant, the difficulty or injustice, so far as the landlord's rights were concerned, was not so clearly apparent, provided the power of using a veto against an objectionable tenant was given to the landlord. In other districts, where enormous sums had been spent by the landlord, and the property had been improved on the English system, or where the landlord had bought up the tenant right, Mr. Kavanagh said the extension of the right of free sale would be an act of "simple confiscation which the circumstances would in no sense justify." That showed what was passing in Mr. Kavanagh's mind. This Report was written with the question, and which every one who have adopted wholly or partially what may Now, he would like to know in what respect these rights were carefully guarded, as the Bill stood, in accordance with that recommendation of Lord Carlingford? The Amendment supplied what Lord Carlingford advocated. He did not wish to obstruct the Bill in the slightest degree-far from it-and, so far as his humble efforts had been directed, they were not in opposition to it. But he supported this Amendment on just grounds; and he believed most sincerely, from what he had heard in the House, from what he had heard from witnesses, and from opinions he had quoted, that if something in the principle of the Amendment-he was not wedded to the wordswere introduced into the Bill, it would conciliate many opponents who now viewed the Bill with the greatest apprehension and aversion. This Amendment was justified by the evidence, justified by the statements of persons who had studied the subject, and justified by those who were interested in the question, and had taken the trouble to commit their opinions to writing for the guidance of Parliament. He was surprised that a Commission, appointed under the circumstances that the Bessborough Commission was, should have their advice disregarded on such an important matter. He had referred to Lord Carlingford, who understood Irish matters, and whose opinion was entitled to the greatest respect; and he contended that where the improvements had not been paid for by the tenant they could not be the property of the occupier; and the Amendment was founded on equity and fairness. The principle of the Bill would not be affected by its adoption; but, as it stood, the clause would inflict a wrong upon land. lords who had done their duty to their tenants. The principle of the Bill was to protect the property a tenant had acquired by his improvements; but where the improvements had been made by the landlord there was no pretence for imposing upon that landlord the same conditions as if he had allowed the tenant to make the improvements. Where the estate was managed on the English system the same law should apply as governed the same condition of things in England. MR. SHAW only wished to interpose for a few minutes. It occurred to him that they had passed a sub-section that provided very effectually for the interests of landlords in Ireland who had laid out Mr. Rodwell He money on their tenants' holdings. The hon. and learned Member who had just spoken had referred repeatedly to estates in Ireland managed on the English system. Now, he sat on the Commission the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to, and he was exceedingly anxious then to hear about these estates, and expected some evidence on the subject. He heard names mentioned, and some of the agents did attend; but they did not raise the question of English management. He found that the general rule was to charge interest upon improvements at such a rate as would cover principle and interest in a certain number of years, and that, he thought. was not the English mode of management. He did not believe there was a single estate in Ireland managed on the English principal. He was in hope that the estates of Lord Fitzwilliam would be found to be exceptions. He was a landlord who resided in the country when he could, and did, as far as he could, promote the welfare of his tenants. (Mr. Shaw) was in hope that Lord Fitzwilliam's agent would give evidence as to the English principle of management on the estates. But there was nothing of the kind. There was no evidence in Ireland of such estates, and he did not believe they existed. He believed there were estates where the landlord had made improvements in the drainage; but there was no habitual outlay. If any Gentleman could bring evidence that there was any distinct likeness between an English estate and an Irish estate, then there would be some foundation in argument for this Amendment; but none existed now. It would be unwise to endeavour to introduce a system of management that would not be liked by the tenant. Nothing would be more difficult, for he believed the tenants would greatly dislike the looking over the bill for the cost of this or that. It did not commend itself to the people of Ireland, and the Committee could not do a more unwise thing than to encourage the absurd idea of spreading English mode of farming all over Ireland. For the last two hours they had not been discussing any real thing about Ireland; and he regretted that it had been set up, for the thing did not exist to any extent in Ireland. MR. C. W. WENTWORTH FITZWILLIAM said, as allusion had been made to his family, he desired to make one or two observations, and to say |