purposes of the Act twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth Victoria, chapter sixtyseven,") to which the Commons have disagreed, not insisted on. Amendment made by the Commons to the Lords Amendment, in page 5, line 43, agreed to. THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD moved to add wild duck, widgeon, and teal to the description of game to be preserved for the landlords. That would only be placing them in the position they now occupied, and the Government had stated that they had no desire to unduly interfere with the landlord's rights. This was a much more important matter than some people thought, because in some parts of Ireland wild duck, widgeon, and teal were the only wild game to be found, and if the landlord's right to preserve them was taken away it would be a serious matter. He, therefore, hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. Moved, In last line of said Amendment, to leave out ("snipe,") and insert ("snipe, wild-duck, widgeon, and teal.")-(The Marquess of Waterford.) THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, that the birds mentioned were not considered in the Game Act of England as game. THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD said, they were considered as game in Ireland, and were always reserved in Irish leases. "persistently" was much better than the word "unreasonably." THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, there might be a conspiracy amongst several tenants to commit this offence, and the word " unreasonably" would strike at that, while "persistently" might not. On question? resolved in the negative. On the Motion of The LORD PRIVY SEAL Lords Amendment not insisted on. Lords Amendment, in page 6, lines 3 and 4, after ("sub-section,") insert all mines and minerals, coal, and coal pits, ("During the continuance of a statutory term, quarries of limestone and other stone and slate, gravel and sandpits, woods and underwoods, and all bogs and bog timber, turbaries for cutthe said rights as the tenant, under the contract ting turf, and rights of turbary, except such of of tenancy subsisting immediately before the commencement of the statutory term, was lawfully entitled to exercise, shall be deemed to be exclusively reserved to the landlord,") -disagreed to by the Commons. THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the House do not insist on the Amendment, said, it was open to the objection that it was not desirable to put in the Bill that which was entirely unnecessary in point of law. Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons hath disagreed."--(The Lord Chancellor.) THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD moved that so much of the Amendment On question? resolved in the affirma- as related to mines and minerals, coals tive. Lords Amendment, in page 6, line 1, leave out ("persistently"), disagreed to by the Commons. THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD moved to omit the word "persistently," and insert instead thereof the word "unreasonably." The clause as it stood would enable a number of tenants to combine together and obstruct the landlord, although they did not persistently do so. and coalpits should be retained in the Bill. As regarded the remainder of the Amendment, he did not think it was necessary. Moved, To leave out from ("coalpits,") in line 3, of the said Amendment, to ("shall") in line 8.-(The Marquess of Waterford.) LORD CARLINGFORD said, he could not understand what was the noble Marquess's reason for making such a proposal. There could be no doubt that the landlord's property was fully proMoved, To leave out the word ("per-tected, and that these words were wholly sistently") in the said Amendment, and insert (unreasonably.")-(The Marquess of Waterford.) THE LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the alteration. He thought the word unnecessary. On question? resolved in the affirma tive. Lords' Amendment, as amended, insisted on. Lords Amendment, in page 6, line 8, | Gainsborough, leave out ("consequent on an increase of rent by the landlord "), disagreed to by the Commons. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved that the House insist on the Amendment. If the words were left out, the only effect would be that those landlords who had not gone through the qualifying process of asking an increase of rent would have the same privileges in respect of resumption which were conferred by the clause as those would have who had gone through that process. He was unable to understand why the fact of a landlord having raised the rent should be regarded as a special qualification for the resumption of his holding, or any portion of it, for the purposes specified in the sub-section. Moved, To insist on the Amendment in page 6, line 8, to which the Commons have disagreed. (The Marquess of Salisbury.) LORD CARLINGFORD said, that the Government could not consent to the omission of the words. Their appear ance in the place where they were found If E. Haddington, É. Digby, L. Lathom, E. [Teller.] Clancarty, V. (E. Clan- Melville, V. Ardilaun, L. L. Ashford, L. (V. Bury.) Dunsandle and Clan conal, L. Foxford, L. (F. Lime- Howard de Walden, L. Kenlis, L. (M. Head fort.) Botreaux, L. (E. Lou- Silchester, L. (E. Long- Clements, L. (E. Leire, L. trim.) De L'Isle and Dudley, L. Tollemache, L. Tyrone, L. (M. Water- Wentworth, L. Wynford, L. Windsor, L. THE EARL OF PEMBROKE asked whether these opinions were got before or after the introduction of the present Bill? EARL SPENCER replied, that these opinions were given in the evidence before the Land Commission. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, that the cases to which the Judges had referred were cases in which the incoming tenant had induced the landlord to get rid of the outgoing tenant by a promise to pay compensation. That was to say, it was worth the incoming tenant's while to pay a slight additional rent, and also compensation for the disturbance induced by eviction. It was evident that under the present Bill, with the right of free sale existing, the bargain would have taken place directly between the parties, and no question of eviction would have arisen. Those opinions, therefore, had been given under a which would arise under the Bill. He totally different state of things from that THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE contended that their Lordships should insist on amending the clause in the direc-wished to add that, in his opinion, the tion of their previous Amendment limiting the scale of compensation. He upper portion of the proposed scale of would, therefore, move that the provi- by the present state of Ireland. The compensation was wholly uncalled for sions regulating the higher scale of noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal had compensation which had been struck out confessed that the provision of compenof the Bill by their Lordships, but re-in-sation for disturbance was a more deserted by the Commons, should be again cided violation of principle than anystruck out, with the intention of subsething in that Bill. quently moving the introduction of a more moderate scale. Moved, To insist on the Amendment in page 6, line 37, to which the Commons have disagreed.-(The Earl of Donoughmore.) LORD CARLINGFORD said, that, having accepted the principle of com LORD CARLINGFORD explained his statement to be that the principle of compensation for disturbance was in principle a greater interference with the landlord than the necessity now laid upon him of recognizing the sale of tenancies. jority 61. CONTENTS. Beaufort, D. On question? Their Lordships divided: pensation for disturbance, he did not-Contents 100; Not-Contents 39: Mathink it worth while for the noble Earl to insist upon this particular Amendment, contesting it now. Although the Government expected that compensation for disturbance would have small effect under the provisions of the Bill, as it would probably not affect many holdings, they desired that, whenever for any rea son it might be brought into operation, it should be in the shape now proposedthat was, should be effective. The Government had proceeded on the authority of many of the Judges who administered the law, some of whom recommended a larger increase in the scale than was now proposed. Abercorn, M. (D. Aber- Annesley, E. Ferrers, E. Feversham, E. Ilchester, E. Lanesborough, E. Lathom, E. [Teller.] Lytton, E. Ardilaun, L Arundell of Wardour, Ashford, L. (V. Bury.) Botreaux, L. (E. Lou- Howard de Walden, L. Kenlis, L. Resolved in the affirmative. On the Motion of The Earl of Do(M. Head-NOUGHMORE, clause amended as follows:-In page 6, line 37, insert Leconfield, L. fort.) Massy, L. Moore, L. heda.) Monteagle, L. (M. (M. ("And the said section three shall hereafter be read as if from such section were omitted the words for the loss which the Court shall find to Drog-holding,' so that the said section shall be read be sustained by him by reason of quitting his as providing that the tenant therein mentioned shall be entitled to such compensation as the Court, in view of all the circumstances of the case, shall think just, subject to the scale of compensation hereinafter mentioned. Mowbray, L. AL. (V. Brodrick, L. (V. Midle- Castlemaine, L. Cloncurry, L. (V. Bar L. Dunsandle and Clan- Ventry, L. Walsingham, L. Colchester, L. Crofton, L. Denman, L. Digby, L. conal, L. Dunsany, L. Wynford, L. "The compensation payable under the said section three in the case of a tenant disturbed in his holding by the act of a landlord after the passing of this Act shall be as follows, in the case of holdings "Where the rent is thirty pounds or under, a sum not exceeding seven years' rent; "Where the rent is above thirty pounds and not exceeding fifty pounds, a sum not exceeding five years' rent; "Where the rent is 'above fifty pounds and not exceeding one hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding four years' rent; "Where the rent is above one hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding three years' rent, but in no case shall the compensation exceed five hundred pounds. "Any tenant in a higher class of the scale may, at his option, claim compensation under a lower class, provided such compensation shall not exceed the compensation to which he would be entitled under such lower class on the assumption that the rent of his holding was reduced to the sum (or where two sums are mentioned the higher sum) stated in such lower class.") Lords Amendment, in page 8, line 15, leave out from the second ("landlord ") to ("may") in line 17, disagreed to by the Commons, not insisted on. EARL CAIRNS said, that the Bill, as it was originally introduced, did not Fingall, L. (E. Fin- give the landlord access to the Court unGranard, L. (E. Gra-Lordships, however, being of opinion less he proposed to raise the rent. Their nard.) Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven that both parties should have equal and Mount-Earl.) access, made the Bill read that the Court might be approached by the tenant, or by the landlord and tenant jointly, or by the landlord; and the Commons had Leigh, L. O'Hagan, L. struck out the addition which extended the right to the landlord. It was proposed in the other House, at a time when the Amendment could not be entertained, to make the clause read, "or by the landlord if the parties have otherwise failed to come to an agreement; " and he should propose to make that Amendment now, on the ground that it was necessary to do equal justice to landlord and tenant. It was a most invidious position for the landlord that he should have to demand an increase of rent before he could have access to the Court, which should be equally open to him as to the tenant. Still believing in the justice of their contention he hoped the House would agree to his present proposition. Moved, To leave out from ("after") in line 15, to ("may") in line 17, and insert ("if the parties have otherwise failed to come to an agreement.")-(The Earl Cairns.) EARL SPENCER said, that in the other House the Government, in order to put the landlord and tenant on a more perfect footing of equality, had been willing to insert certain words varying somewhat slightly from those just proposed; but considerable importance was attached to that variation. The Forms of the House, however, prevented those words being proposed; but he now submitted them-namely, "or having otherwise failed to agree with the tenant as to what a fair rent is." The view of the Government was that, in the beginning, the parties did not stand on an equal footing; that the landlord had considerable advantages over the tenants in various ways, including the advantage of the possession of a large purse, and therefore the Government admitted the equity of the position taken up by the Commons. The Government were anxious to encourage the landlord and tenant to settle these matters out of Court, if possible; in fact, they considered it was only a part of the landlord's duty to do so. They therefore proposed that they should do so by means of the words originally inserted. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, while sympathizing with the Government in their desire that the parties should endeavour to arrange without coming to the Court, preferred the words of his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns), in order to meet the case where the tenant was in a state of hostility to his landlord, excited by outside parties. THE LORD CHANCELLOR having spoken in favour of the original words, Earl Cairns THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, he thought it would be unfortunate if the Government insisted that where landlord and tenant could not come to an agreement in consequence of some external influence operating on the tenant, the landlord should be forced to demand an increase of rent in order to open the doors of the Court to himself. It would simply add unnecessarily to the bitterness between the two parties. Again, there were many reasons why a landlord might like to have his rent fixed by the Court, although he did not want to increase his rent. For instance, he might wish to have it fixed for purposes of sale. On question? resolved in the affirmative. Lords Amendment, in page 8, line 20, leave out from ("parties") to second ("and") in line 21, disagreed to by the Commons. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, he must now ask the House to insist upon the Amendment in the 7th clause, which provided that a tenant of a present tenancy, or the tenant or landlord jointly, might apply to the Court from time to time to have a fair rent fixed, and that the Court might fix such rent after hearing the parties, and "having regard to the interests of the landlord and tenant respectively." The matter was one to which considerable importance was attached in Ireland. He proposed to leave out the words, "having regard to the interests of the landlord and tenant respectively." He freely admitted that these words had had no special sense attached to them; and if they were used in an English Bill they would not excite very much remark. But there was no doubt that when they were introduced in the House of Commons, though they did not excite very much feeling on the part of the Government at the time, and were described as being merely sentimental, yet, when they became more generally known, it was felt that they implied something more than at first sight appeared. This Bill had, more than any other Bill with which he was acquainted, reference to public opinion in the community with which it had to deal; and the words in question were to be viewed not only with reference to their precise legal effect, but also with reference to their operation in the minds of those to whom they ap |