Scotland. He should like to the Prime Minister why, in this matter, there was to be tional rule in Ireland.

MR. GLADSTONE said, he would answer the noble Lord by saying that he considered the law as to improvements in England and Scotland to be, in the abstract, wrong. He considered that the general rule ought to be that which was established in the Bill-namely, that improvements created by the tenant should be the property of the tenant, and that he should receive the value of them when he quitted the holding; and that the modifications of that rule, such as are common in England and Scotland, should be introduced by special contract, where they were introduced at all. In the present peculiar state of Ireland it was, however, necessary to limit the application of special contracts.

MR. CORRANCE said, he did not think that the ultimate effect of the clause would be injurious to either the landlord or the tenant, but it would in

crease rents.

hear from cretary for Ireland, limiting the prerespect of sumption for improvements to 20 years, an excep- removed in a certain degree his objection to a part of them, as in the absence of a tenant being able to produce proof that 20 years before he or his predecessors in title had made the improvements referred to, they must merge in the land, and consequently become the property of the landlord. If, on the other hand, the tenant could prove that those improvements were made either by him or his predecessors in title, it was only right that he should obtain, upon quitting his holding, fair compensation for them, due regard being had to the length of time which he had enjoyed them. These considerations, however, only applied to permanent buildings; and, with the permission of the Committee, he would alter his Amendment by moving only to omit the words "and reclamation of land." These words opened a far larger and more intricate question-the fair solution of which was, in his opinion, far from easy. Before the Easter Recess this subject was for a short time under discussion; and then, as hon. Members would remember, some very grave considerations which it involved were raised but not decided. It required to be clearly defined what was the nature of the reclamation which, made 20 years ago, was to be regarded now as conferring a right to claim compensation for it. Draining, he knew, to his own cost should not, for he was now paying £200 a year under what was termed "Labouchere's Letter," for a sum that was expended in draining on his property, the whole of which he had had to do over again at his own expense. Reclaiming mountain or waste land, unless the improvement had been sustained, should be another exception. He had known land, which was made arable at considerable expense, after less than 10 years, from careless husbandry, relapse into the wilderness it was before. On the other hand, clearing land of stones was a fair case for compensation, for that was unquestionably a permanent improvement. erection of boundary fences in a substantial, permanent manner appeared to him to be another, whereas the wellknown love that Irish tenants had for subdividing their farms and covering them with a network of fences could only be regarded in the very opposite [Committee-Clause 4.

DR. BALL said, it appeared, from the explanation given from the Treasury Bench of the object of the sub-section, that this was not the proper place for the Amendment. The principle of the Amendment ought, however, to be considered at the proper time; because, as the Bill stood, the tenant might claim compensation for improvements made ages before he had become tenant, if they had been by any person from whom, either directly or by accident, he could claim a title to those improvements. He considered that the conclusion to which the Government had arrived was in direct opposition to the evidence taken before Lord Clanricarde's Committee.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. KAVANAGH moved, in page 5, line 6, to leave out from "except " to "reclamation of land" in line 7, both inclusive. His reason for moving the omission of these words was that he considered that, when taken in connection with Clause 5, their unlimited retrospective bearing was a very glaring injustice, and likely to be most dangerous in its results, as being directly calculated to give rise to endless and irritating litigation. He was bound to say, however, that the Amendment to Clause 5 placed upon the Paper by the Chief Se

L 2

The

light from improvement. The question interest and convenience it was that such was a very large and a very intricate reclamation should take place. Such one, and one with which his knowledge tenants had been satisfied to accept of agricultural matters was not enough leases for 20 years, and it would be to make him competent to deal. He monstrous to prevent landlords from hoped, therefore, by moving the omis- getting the proper value of their land on sion of these words the question would the expiration of that term. In Scotland be raised, and that they would not be tenants were willing, on being granted retained without some proper, clear, and leases for 19 years, to reclaim land and definite qualification. to give it up to the owner in a good state of cultivation, or to continue in the occupation of it at a considerably increased rent; and surely the Government would not contend that an Irishman could not do likewise when a lease for 31 years was granted to him. He therefore hoped that the words "reclamation of land" would be struck out of the section.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 7, to leave out the words "and reclamation of land."-(Mr. Kavanagh.)

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, that if under this Bill a claim was made for the cost of making drainage which was good for nothing when made it would be treated in a very summary manner; because, as it would not be an improvement within the meaning of the Bill, it would at once be dismissed from consideration by the Court. The Government were not able to agree to the Amendment, as they thought that to limit to 20 years claims for improvements of such a permanent nature as the reclamation of land would not be in accordance with the principles of the Bill. In many cases a long period must elapse before the cost of reclaiming land could be recouped, and tenants in such cases would never have undertaken the work had they dreamed of being limited to 20 years. To leave such a matter to the discretion of the Court-as was provided by the latter part of the clause-was, the Government thought, a fair way to meet the justice of such cases; while he was inclined to think that Courts would not experience any difficulty in interpreting the words "reclamation of land," that phrase being one which was well understood in Ireland. If, however, it should be thought safer to define the term, the Government would take the matter into consideration.

COLONEL BARTTELOT said, the right hon. Gentleman had not given an answer to the Amendment, which related to a serious matter, owing to the great quantity of land in Ireland that might and could be reclaimed, such land at present not being enclosed, drained, or applied to the purposes of agriculture. He knew cases in which land in Ireland had been let on leases for 20 years, at rentals varying from 18. 6d. to 58. per Irish acre, for the distinct purpose of being reclaimed by the tenants to whose

Mr. Kavanagh

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, he always felt depressed when the word Scotland was mentioned in the discussion on this Bill, for its mention did not tend to the solution of the difficulties which were raised. It was not for him to define a particular word, and he had, therefore, simply expressed his belief that the Courts would find very little difficulty in applying the language of the Bill to any particular case that might come before them. He would point out that improvements made under leases were expressly provided for in the Bill, as they would be made under a contract for valuable consideration. All that the hon. Member had in view in proposing the Amendment would be met by what was within the Bill.

MR. SYNAN said, that, in his opinion, all permanent improvements ought to be excepted, just as much as reclamation of land.

MR. BRUEN, in reference to the necessity for a definition of the reclamation of land, said, he had effected a real reclamation by draining and subsoiling a formerly worthless peat, which the tenant carefully fenced round to keep his cattle off it, lest they should eat anything that was poisonous. The cost of draining was £3 2s. 6d. an acre, and of subsoiling £5 an acre; so that the total cost of reclamation was £8 2s. 6d. an acre; and a year or two afterwards the land produced a crop of barley which he sold for £19 an acre. He admitted that in some places where there were rocks and stones, a larger expense would have to be incurred; but in an ordinary case of reclaiming the surface of land from a

state of nature, the expense incurred |vided for farms under leases, the Amendmight be easily recouped in a few years; ment was unnecessary, and they ought and 20 years was the outside term which now to discuss the question only as it ought to be allowed to a tenant to recoup affected tenancies-at-will; and, unless it himself. He believed that the words could be shown that it was not the cus"reclamation of land" were quite unne- tom to raise rents immediately after imcessary here to meet the ends of justice. provements, compensation must be alTHE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR lowed for permanent improvements. IRELAND (Mr. Dowse) reminded the Committee that on a former evening he referred to the 27 & 28 Vict. c. 114, s. 9, the Improvement of Lands Act, 1864, which applied to England and Ireland, and the 9th clause of which contained a subdivision which spoke of the reclamation of land and all operations necessary thereto. Many hon. Members said that the reclamation of land under that statute was perfectly well understood, and, that being so, there was no difficulty in interpreting the phrase under this Bill. Having consulted the best authorities, the Government came to the conclusion that the reclamation, as so understood, could not generally be paid for in 20 years, although there might be instances in which it would, and if there were the Court would deal with them. If a tenant said it was 30 years since he reclaimed land, the Court would say he had been abundantly repaid. The only thing the clause provided for was that a tenant should not be debarred from making a claim.

LORD ELCHO said, he was glad to hear from so staunch a supporter of the Government as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) that leases ought to be excluded from the operation of the clause. It was not surprising that the Chief Secretary shuddered when he heard the names of England and Scotland, because principles of legislation were being introduced which would recoil upon this country, and which might operate immediately in Scotland; and he should be surprised if the result of this discussion was not to show some English and Scotch Members the wild character of the legislation proposed. He had put a question to the Prime Minister, and had obtained a direct answer from him. In England and in Scotland the law was, that where tenants made improvements and were in possession long enough to have enjoyed the usufruct, the landlords received back the lands so improved without compensation to the tenant. He asked the Prime Minister whether there was any differMR. M'LAGAN said, it was important ence in the case of Ireland, and whether the Committee should understand the there was any sufficient reason for exposition they were in, and that there was ceptional legislation? The right hon. a difference between yearly tenancies Gentleman could not say there was, nor and leases. If a man had a lease for 19 could anybody on the Treasury Bench or for 31 years, he might recoup himself; say there was. But the right hon. Genand in Aberdeenshire, with a lease for tleman added that, in his opinion, the 19 years, at a nominal rent of 18. or system in England and Scotland was 28. 6d. an acre, a man gave up all im- wrong; and, if he thought so, it was his provements except buildings, as it was duty to press for a change in the law supposed he had repaid himself. A there. He (Lord Elcho) maintained, on man's doing so of course depended upon the contrary, that, both in justice and in there having been no increase of rent policy, the principle was a sound one. during the 19 years; but in Ireland he He held in his hand a Scotch lease found that, with yearly tenancies, im- granted in 1732 by Simon Fraser, Lord provement was followed immediately by Lovat, who lost his head in 1745, and an advance of rent. In such cases a who reclaimed portions of his land by a tenant ought to be paid, even though he system of cottier tenants. This was a had had the land for 30 years. In Ire-lease granted to certain persons who land he found much land quite unculti-werevated, and the tenant in each case said— "I might improve it; but if I did, the rent would be raised at once." For these reasons he should treat leases separately from tenancies-at-will. As the Chief "And seeing that the said place is nothing but Secretary for Ireland said the Bill pro- a barren moor or hill, without the least improve

"To take as much land as they were able to take in and improve during the currency of their present tack,"

for the term of seven years—

[Committee-Clause 4.

claimed during that period at an ad- | accept. All he would do, however, in acvanced rent. He was glad that the hon. cepting that challenge, would be to reMember for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh) had quest the noble Lord and Members from excluded permanent buildings from his Scotland no longer to waste the time of Amendment. They stood upon quite a the Committee in prolonging those enddifferent footing, and it was quite right less and useless discussions. They had that, even at the end of 31 years, if the been at least two months engaged in tenant had built a good house, he should discussing the Bill; and it was, therereceive some compensation for it. In fore, surely time that they should cease leases made 20 years ago, it might not to talk about Scotland, and should allow have been specified precisely that at legislation to go on, and if possible pass the end of the term reclamation of land the Bill. He entreated them for once should not be paid for; but 20 years to abandon their Scotch ideas, and try ago nobody dreamed that a Bill like the to legislate for Ireland in view of the present would ever be introduced into actual state and wants of that country, Parliament. He entirely concurred with and to make Ireland no longer in name, what had fallen from his hon. Friend the but part and parcel of a great United Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan). Kingdom. If it were the custom in Ireland-and he much doubted it-that the moment a man had reclaimed the land his rent was raised, he certainly was not allowed to enjoy his improvements, and he ought, in that case, to be entitled to compensation. If, however, a lease was made 20 years ago, and contained no special provision for such payment, the landlord ought, at the expiration of the time, to receive his own again, and be allowed to enter into a fresh agreement with the tenant. And, after the passing of this Act, if a man could not recoup himself in the course of 31 years, he had no business to expend his money on the reclamation of the land.

MR. ORR EWING said, he could not assent to the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Robertson), that Scotchmen and Englishmen were not entitled to take part in these discussions, for the general feeling of the House was that the laws of England, Scotland, and Ireland should be assimilated as far as possible, and that there should be no more exceptional legislation than was absolutely necessary. Hon. Members must not forget that, although the present measure had reference only to Ireland, it might hereafter be made a precedent for legislation for Scotland and England. If the law which it was now proposed to extend to Ireland had prevailed in Scotland, he doubted whether many thousands of acres of land which now yielded fine crops would have been yet reclaimed from a state of barrenness. The reclamation of land in Scotland had been accomplished by the frugality and in

MR. ROBERTSON, in reference to an allusion of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Elcho), as to their hunting together many years ago, said, he was by no means sure they did not spend their time as usefully, and assuredly more agreeably, then than they did now. He had no intention of following the bad ex-dustry of the people, though he adample set by some hon. Members from Scotland, who, in speaking upon an Irish question, wasted the time of the Committee in long irrelevant speeches drawing comparisons between England, Scotland, and Ireland instead of looking at the actual state of things in Ireland itself. The present was an exceptional case and exceptional legislation; but he must say it was stepping out of the record in every sense of the word, when they dragged the position of England and Scotland into that discussion. The noble Lord had challenged him to speak on the subject, and no man should ever give him a challenge, either in the House or out of it, that he would not

mitted it had been encouraged by the liberal way in which the landlords had acted towards their tenants. In fact, the agreement was for the mutual advantage of both parties, a lease being granted to the tenant at a nominal rent for 19 years, in order that he might effect improvements, from which the landlord derived no benefit until after the expiration of the term. It would be well if, instead of introducing a bad system into Ireland, they were to adopt a system which had worked so successfully in Scotland. If the Committee did not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh), he hoped they would support the Amend[Committee-Clause 4.