their rent. He believed no Court in existence would do that. But the fear being there, he thought it was a very natural feeling on the part of the landlords to be rather alarmed on the subject, and this was their mode of solving the difficulty. It struck him at the beginning that there was nothing very serious in these words; but he should certainly preface them with a provision which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland assured him was already in the Bill, and in fixing the rent any improvements on outlay made by the tenant or his predecessors in title should not be taken as a ground for raising the rent. If it was provided for in the Bill, he could not see that these words would do the slightest harm. He did not think there was any hidden or sinister object in them; but if there was it would be all the worse for the landlord in the long

sisted in compensation for improvements
they might be entitled to under the Act
of 1870, and in compensation for dis-
turbance to which they might be en-
titled under the same Act. A strong
set, however, had been made against
the clause, and the Government for the
sake of peace, and for the sake of
getting rid of the very strong opposition
which undoubtedly would have proved
fatal to the Bill, gave in, and said they
would leave it to the discretion of the
Court; but, at the same time, they as-
sured the Irish Members that the words
which they cut out from the original
were still suggested in the Bill, and the
tenants were protected. The clause had
now come back from the Lords, with a
very vague addition, which he (Mr. Par-
nell) defied anybody to explain, and
which the Government would not at-
tempt to explain in the slightest de-
gree. If the Government were going to
agree with their Lordships in this Amend-run.
ment, Irish Members were entitled to
claim that the clause should be restored
to its original state. If the Government
were not going to keep their word with
the House, and leave the matter to the
discretion of the Court, but if, at the
eleventh hour, they were going to turn
round and introduce a definition against
the tenant and in favour of the landlord
at the bidding of "another place," the
Irish Members were also entitled to turn
round and ask that the clause should be
defined in the interest of the tenant,
and that it should be restored to the
form it originally bore before it was
altered to get rid of Conservative oppo-
sition in this House.

MR. SHAW said, he thought the House of Lords had gone a long way in the solution of the difficulty which arose under that clause. That difficulty commenced when his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Charles Russell) introduced his words into the Bill, which were entirely unnecessary. The words, however, being in the clause he (Mr. Shaw) did not think they could submit to their being struck out. The original intention of the Government was to leave the question of the rent entirely to the Court, and the insertion of these words gave rise to a fear on the part of the landlords that there was some hidden intention of taking the absurd price given in the North of Ireland, and taking 5 per cent on that price out of

He thought, however, that some words might be introduced which would make it discretionary on the Court; and he would suggest that these words should be inserted, in "case the Court should be of opinion that an excessive sum has been given.'

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

be some inquiry behind the amount paid | amended."-(Mr. Attorney General for for the tenant right, so that the mere Ireland.) money paid at the beginning of the tenancy would not be conclusive in favour

of the tenant.

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

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

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

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment, page 8, line 35,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR

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

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

Question put, and agreed to.

Words struck out by The Lords restored to the Bill, and subsequent Amendment of The Lords to the same clause agreed to.

Lords' Amendment, page 8, line 23, as since amended by the Lords.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment, as

The Attorney General for Ireland

IRELAND (Mr. Law) said, the Government could not accept the Amendment. He must, therefore, move to disagree with it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

Question put.

It

The House divided:-Ayes 198; Noes 86: Majority 112.-(Div. List, No. 387.)

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Lords Amendments to

the Amendments made by the Commons | any doubt about the meaning of the to the Lords Amendments, in page 9, Amendment, that doubt would be reline 16, agreed to, with Amendments.

The Amendment made by The Lords to the words restored to the Bill by The Lords not insisting on their Amendment in page 9, line 39, to which the Commons had disagreed, read a second time.

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

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with

The Lords in the said Amendment.". (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

moved by the insertion of the word "otherwise." They summed up all the matters that the Court could take into consideration under the words "paid or otherwise compensated." He thought the adoption of the Lords' Amendment would lead to some ambiguity, though, perhaps, it had some basis in reason, and might be accepted if it were modified and made more clear in its language.

MR. GIBSON said, he would admit that the word "otherwise" made an important change; but he did not understand why the Prime Minister objected to the particular words contained in the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote). He (Mr. Gibson) thought it was conceived in the most effect might be given to that which moderate spirit. It only asked that

nine out of every ten reasonable men would consider the ordinary commonsense view of the case-namely, that the Court should take into account the date when the tenant commenced to make his improvements and the rent which he paid. He could not agree with the Prime Minister that these elements, in a fair decision of the cases which might arise, were, with sufficient detail, stated in the Bill as it stood. If the statement of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland and of his right hon. Friend were engrafted upon the rules of the Court he would be quite satisfied; but he was not quite content that the Court should alone be guided by the words of the clause as it stood.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE admitted that the words, as proposed, were an improvement of the clause as it now stood; but he did not think that they made up for the words which the Lords had put in, and which were almost identically the same as those which he (Sir Stafford Northcote) had moved when the Bill was in Committee. Those words were taken from the Land Act of 1870, and only provided what was fairnamely, that the Court should take into consideration the length of time during which the tenant had been in enjoyment of the improvements at a low rent. The Amendment met the case of a man who took a holding at a moderate or low rent with a view of making improvements MR. CHARLES RUSSELL opposed which would cost him something, but for the Amendment, being apprehensive which, on the terms on which he had that under it the landlord might receive taken his holding, he expected the length compensation for improvements for which of the lease would enable him to recoup he had not paid. He did not see that himself. He, therefore, hoped the Go- the length of the enjoyment of the imvernment would not object to the inser-provements had anything to do with the tion of the words. It seemed to him to be very fair and reasonable.

MR. GLADSTONE said, that such a case would be sufficiently covered by the words of their Amendment-"paid or otherwise compensated for," which they proposed to introduce after the Lords' Amendment had been formally disagreed with. They were much more simple than the words from the Act of 1870. Their contention was that if there was

question. He saw no reason why the landlord should, in the rent, have consideration for improvements which he had neither purchased nor given any other compensation for.

CAPTAIN AYLMER supported the Amendment, believing that if it were not adopted a tenant who had already received compensation for his outlay through the payment of a low rent would again receive compensation in money.