ment I have to move does not affect the the obligation to compensate him at the question of the lease to be given where end of that term. The Government fix improvements are to be made; it does it at 31 years, and the proposition I subnot interfere with the compensation to mit is to change the 31 into 21. I assert, be allowed under the Bill where improve- in the first place, that a term of 21 years ments are made or shall be made. The is in itself a very considerable tenure. only question that is before the Committee I have endeavoured to ascertain from is this-What is to be the term of lease the Tables what is the value of a 21 to exonerate the landlord from what is years' lease, taken relatively to the value called compensation for disturbance of of the fee. I take the value of a fee the tenant or from damages for eviction? simple in Ireland to be 20 years' purThe Government propose in the 3rd chase. That is computed on the suppoclause that, if the landlord grants a lease sition that money is of the value of 5 per of 31 years, the grant of that lease shall cent, and it is quite plain that 20 years' exonerate him from the operation of that purchase does assume the value of the clause-that is to say, in any case where money to be 5 per cent. On this basis, a lease is given by a landlord and ac- then, taking the value of the fee at 20 cepted by a tenant, and where the tenure years' purchase, a lease of 21 years, such is under an instrument defining it to as I propose, would be equivalent to have 31 years' duration, at the termina- 12.82 years, or nearly 13 years out of tion of that lease the landlord will be the whole 20 years' purchase, while a relieved from any obligation to compen- term of 31 years would be equivalent to sate the tenant for the loss of possession. 15 59 years, or nearly 16 years out of But the right of the tenant will remain the 20 years' purchase. Therefore, the under the 4th clause to permanent im- demand of the Government is, that the provements, such as buildings or the landlord shall give the tenant close upon reclamation of land. Here we are deal- 16 years of the 20 years' value of the ing only with the 3rd clause and not fee. That, on the face of it, shows that with the 4th. The Government have 31 years is too long a term. On the the same provision in regard to 31 years other hand, in proposing a 21 years' in the 4th clause; and I object to your lease, instead of a 31 years' lease, the laying down the same measure of dura- value of which, as I have said, bears the tion to exonerate the landlord from the proportion of 12.82, or close upon 13 to 3rd clause as you lay down in the 4th 20 the entire value of the fee, I think to exonerate him from the 4th clause. I am not offering an inconsiderable or I the duration ought to be different, limited term. Therefore I hold that as the principles here applicable are a 21 years' lease is a liberal and advandifferent. We are now, however, only tageous lease for the tenant, and, ason the 3rd clause, and this ought to be suming it to be a liberal and advandistinctly understood, because the hon. tageous lease, there are some consideraGentleman opposite who made the last tions of policy in its favour. I think it proposition (Mr. Synan) seemed to con- was an error on the part of the Governfuse the two sections together, intro-ment, whatever term they adopted, to ducing into his speech topics applicable only to the lease to be given as bearing on compensation for improvements, but not applicable to the lease to be given to relieve the landlord from his obligation in respect of the loss or termination of the tenant's occupation. I hold that it has been affirmed by the judgment of the House that there is to be compensation given in the abstract for disturbance of possession; but the Government themselves, by asserting that proposition and obtaining a majority in its favour, conceded the principle that there is a given tenure or duration of possession, which, if a man obtains, it is just that the landlord should be relieved from

say

adopt the same term in Clause 3 and in Clause 4. Your object in the exception in both clauses is this-you want to encourage a lease. I object to your laying down one standard and encouraging one single lease for this reason, that if you do all leases will fall in simultaneously, and when they so fall in you will enable combinations to be established to carry out the same organized system as we have at the present moment. If you by compulsion, or by devices equivalent to compulsion, say you will have one fixed and stereotyped form and duration of lease to be applicable to tenants in all parts of the country, there is great danger that when their leases are all at one time [Committee-Clause 3.

coming to an end they will resist any the practice in reference to leases in alteration of the relations of landlord Ireland. I find, by a Paper taken from and tenant, and demand the renewal of a Return made by the Poor Law Comprecisely the same tenure again. In missioners, that the number of leases the 4th clause, which deals with improve- for 21 years or less is 25,000, and the ments, a pressure is put on the landlord number exceeding 21 years, and not exto give the tenant a 31 years' lease, ceeding 31 years, is about 22,000. There otherwise he would not be exonerated is a greater number of leases for lives on the termination of the tenant's namely, about 28,000; and for three occupancy from paying for drains in the case of wet and marshy land; but in the 3rd clause the exoneration is applicable to land on which no improvements are required, or only such improvements as are of trifling value. By retaining the term of 31 years in the 4th clause, and by amending the 3rd clause by the insertion of the term of 21 years, the result would be not that leases would be granted either for 21 years or 31 years merely, but you would find leases granted for 22 years, 23 years, and so on, and consequently they would be falling in at different periods. That I consider an advantage in a political point of view, because I do not deem it desirable that the whole of the tenures in Ireland should be placed on such a basis as that they would all simultaneously require re-adjustment in one particular year. There is another reason which makes the term of 21 years for a lease desirable. If a man gives a 31 years' lease there is no prospect, in the ordinary course of things, that he and the tenant would ever make an arrangement together again. Now I say it is not desirable that the tenant should feel that when his lease terminates he will have to face a different landlord. Such a course would encourage ideas utterly at variance with all those feelings and obligations existing in the relation of landlord and tenant, and which, with all your legislation, you never will eradicate the sentiment of a moral obligation on the one hand, and on the other a feeling of gratitude for favours and benefits received. I believe that a term of 21 years in reference to leases would have a tendency to keep up the idea that there is a relation between landlord and tenant, because that is a term which might afford to any landlord the hope of again seeing his tenant, and exhibiting towards him the same kindness as he had previously shown. Having made these few observations bearing on the policy of the proposition I am about to make, I will now state what has been

Dr. Ball

lives, or 31 years concurrently, the number is 30,000. Hence it appears that there is a considerable number of leases for 31 years, and I will also add that a much greater number of leases for 21 years has been made of late than formerly. Those who manage their estates best in Ireland, and among them some of the greatest English proprietors, have selected the period of 21 years in preference to the more extended term of 31 years, holding the latter to be too long a period, inasmuch as it puts the matter out of the hands of the existing generation. Moreover, it was found that when the Irish tenants had leases of 31 years, or three lives, they covered the land by subletting and subdividing. A lease for 31 years was always considered of the same value as a lease for three lives, and that is the reason why leases were granted for three lives, or for 31 years concurrently. Now, I say, encourage under the 3rd clause the grant of leases for 21 years when the land is taken for ordinary occupancy, and encourage leases for 31 years under the 4th clause in cases where improvements are to be made. I now come to some authority which appears very much to bear on this question, and I have been greatly influenced in thinking that the term of 31 years is too long by the fact that a Committee of the House of Lords, composed of men of great ability, did not recommend a 31 years' lease. The Chairman of that Committee was a large Irish proprietor, with a vast knowledge of the circumstances of Ireland, and of great sagacity-the Marquess of Clanricarde. I find on that Committee the names of the Duke of Devonshire, the Earl of Clarendon, and the Earl of Kimberley - the two latter being ex-Lord Lieutenants of Ireland - and also the names of two ex- Lord Chancellors, Lord Westbury and Lord Cairns. want to know to what better source you could go for authoritative statements on this subject? But those noble Lords did not act on their own judgment in the

I

matter. They took evidence not merely I am not now referring to improvement, on the point of land tenure, but also on I am speaking of farming leases; but that of improvements. The longest tenure in this Bill no distinction is drawn besuggested by that Committee was 25 tween the two cases. The landlord is years. The Committee never dreamed equally punished in both cases. Mr. of any compensation for occupation. Brooke, one of the Masters in the Irish They were dealing with the large ques- Court of Chancery, says he believes the tion of improvements. But I will refer tenants would be quite satisfied with you to some of the evidence. Among leases of 21 years, and would not look the witnesses examined was Mr. William for more. Mr. Kincaid, another witSteuart Trench, who manages estates in ness, says that in the case of building a Ireland for the Marquess of Lansdowne 31 years' lease ought to be granted; but and the Marquess of Bath, and who, that is in accordance with what I want probably, is known to most Members of to lay down. I contend that there ought this House by his book, which gives a to be a difference between leases for impicture of Ireland in respect of the re-provements and buildings and mere farm lations of landlord and tenant. I rely not so much on the book as on his experience as a land agent. The Marquess of Clanricarde asks him this question"What length of lease do you recommend generally for a farmer, properly so called?" He replies

Twenty-one years is what I always advised

and recommended."

“How long a lease do you think would be a fair term for a man who was about to erect a house and suitable premises at his own expense?" He answers

"Thirty years, in my judgment, provided that the house was suitable in nature and extent to the farm he occupied, and that the farm was of sufficient size, so that consequently the house would be of sufficient size."

The answers to those questions bear out the view that I ask the Committee to take—namely, that under ordinary circumstances a 21 years' lease would be sufficient, and that 31 years' lease would amply compensate for improvements. I find that before the same Committee Mr. U. R. Mackay was examined. He holds 600 acres of land in the county of Cork as a tenant-farmer. In answer to a question put to him by the Chairman of the Committee, he says

"I think that 21 years would be sufficiently long on the generality of farms to develop the farms to their full maximum fertility, and under proper encouragement I think that would be done."

leases.

I admit, however, that there was evidence before the Committee which went rather further than that to which I have been referring. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) was examined. The hon. Member had previously obtained a Committee of this House on the land question, and much valuable evidence was elicited before his Committee. Before the Lords' Committee he intimated that he would not be content with a 21 years' lease; but when you come to examine the reasoning of the hon. Member-unless I altogether misunderstand his evidence-I think you will find that he is referring to improvements, and that he thinks nothing less than a 31 years' lease would do in the case of improvements. In his answer to one of the questions put to the hon. Member there is this passage

"My idea is that a lease of 31 years, which is about the popular lease in Ireland, would be the best for encouraging agricultural improvements, and the best to induce the tenant to improve the land and to expend whatever capital he may have upon the land; and I know that there is much more capital in the country than people generally imagine. But that 31 years' lease, in my opinion, would not cover all legitimate claim for compen sation. If a man built a house, at the termination of the 31 years I would give him a claim for compensation for its value.”

But what is the meaning of all that reasoning? It shows that the hon. Member is not speaking of the compensation with which we are now dealing, but of compensation for improvements. The compensation with which I am dealing is that which it is proposed the landlord must pay as damages for evicChief Secretary for Ireland has given tion, and an Amendment of which the Notice powerfully supports my propoThe 3rd clause has been ob

sition.

[Committee-Clause 3.

jected to on this side of the House, not so much by Irish as by English Members. It has been objected to on the other side also. But the Government preserve it with the qualification of which the right hon. Gentleman has given Notice-namely, that the clause shall be law for only 20 years, unless Parliament shall otherwise direct.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Certainly not. My Amendment does not apply to the whole clause, but only to that part of it which prohibits the parties from contracting out of it. That is quite a different thing.

DR. BALL: I thought it applied to the whole clause; but even if it does not, yet my argument remains of the same force, for the existence of the clause depends on the coercive portion of it. The coercion is what keeps it alive. Is it not as plain as light that if the Government give us the power of contracting out of it we shall not contract into it? I shall not detain the Committee at any greater length. The question is one between 21 years and 31 years. I say that statistics, the opinion of competent authorities, and good policy are in favour of 21 years. It will be sufficient to protect the tenants from capricious eviction, and they would not have asked for more if dangerous and extravagant expectations had not been suggested to them.

the landlord and tenant might contract to be removed out of the scope of the Bill was brought so low as £50. I also regretted to see the Amendment placed on the Paper by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, by which the tenant-at-will of a farm valued at more than £100 will not be entitled to the benefit of this clause. I regret these two concessions, though I am quite willing to admit that they have been-not forced, but pressed upon the Government by the evident feeling of the House, because I believe that in Ireland there are many tenants of farms not only over £50, but over £100 per annum, who are not in that independent position which is occupied by similar tenants in England; and who are in need, though not in such great need as others, of protection under this Bill. But I can perfectly understand the reasons which have induced the House to press upon the Government these concessions. I can understand that the House is willing to legislate for the very poorest and most dependent class of tenants, though they would be extremely jealous of interfering with the relations between landlords and those tenants who are in a position to look after their own interests. This Amendment, however, if carried, will be unlike those Amendments to which the Government have agreed; it will not restrict the number of persons to whom the Bill will apply, but will restrict the protection which will be given by the Bill to the very poorest and most dependent class of tenants. If a landlord can force a tenant to take a 21 years' lease-as is proTHE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: posed by this Amendment-the tenant Sir, I am not one of those who ever will have forfeited the protection which thought this Bill erred, or erred greatly, this clause could otherwise have given in the direction of too much concession him. I say "if a landlord can force a to the tenant. In my opinion, when tenant to take" such a lease, because I Parliament made up its mind to deal believe it will require something amountwith this question-when once it had ing almost to force to induce an Irish resolved to go beyond the mere conside-tenant to take a 21 years' lease. Every ration of improvements, and to legislate on the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland-it ought to have decided on doing so in a comprehensive manner, and in a manner which would afford us hope of effective results. It is therefore I have seen with regret some Amendments which have been, I will not say forced on the Government, but pressed on the Government by the evident feeling of the House. I saw with regret, I admit, that the limit at which

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 15, to leave out the word "thirty-one," and insert the word "twenty-one.". (Dr. Ball.)

Dr. Ball

Gentleman connected with Ireland will bear me out in the assertion that leases for so short a term as 21 years have ever been, as they are now, extremely unpopular with Irish tenants, and that under a reasonably good landlord they would prefer to remain tenants-at-will rather than take such leases. Then, I ask, what will be the effect of this Amendment? By that part of the clause which has already been passed the House has done that which will make it