therein whenever he pleased. There served if a landlord chose to increase was no such provision in this clause, the rent? Suppose a tenant under the which did not contemplate either fixity, Ulster custom wished to go to America, security, or stability of tenure, or the and sold his right to a stranger, the landpractice of Ulster, which was not to lord might say-"I have allowed you evict, but to obtain from the tenant such to hold your farm at a low rent, because an improved rent as the circumstances you and your ancestors have held it for of the case might warrant. That cus- generations; but now you are about to tom was legalized by the 1st clause of bring in a perfect stranger, and I will, the Bill; but this clause did not provide therefore, raise the rent to a fair and for that continuity of occupation which full value of the holding." Would the was the essence of the Ulster tenant- Court allow this increase of rent? He right. understood that tenant-right was proportionate to the rent, and therefore the increase of rent would decrease the value of the tenant-right.

SIR JOHN SINCLAIR said, he thought that the Amendment would be entirely inoperative. It was not likely that the Ulster landlord would buy up his tenant's right, because if he did so he would only bring himself in relation to his tenants under the operation of the 3rd clause. He believed that any landMR. SPENCER WALPOLE said, in lord, having regard to his own interest, reference to the present clause, taken in would find it very much more to his connection with Clauses 13 and 14, it interest to leave a tenant in possession was important that everything should be than to evict him. But he wished to made as specific as possible, both in reask how the tenant-right was to be pre-gard to the claim made by the tenant VOL. CCI. [THIRD SERIES.]

would indicate, if adopted, to the Judges what were the intentions of the Legislature as to the subjects of consideration on which the fluctuating scale of damages was to be apportioned, and he must confess that, as things stood, he was quite at a loss to know on what grounds a Judge could justify his decisions to the public in cases of disturbance in giving the tenant in one instance three, in another seven, and in a third one year's compensation.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, he did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman supported the Amendment of the hon. and learned

vernment was immeasurably stronger. The Bill neither indicated the subjects to be considered, nor the views to be entertained respecting them. He had understood it was the intention of the Government to introduce into the Equities Clause some more specific indication of the subjects for consideration by the Courts in administering the scale. If it were only to preserve uniformity of decision, this was needed. There would, in the first instance, be 32 Judges to carry out the Act. From them an appeal would lie to the Judges at Assizes, who, again, would reserve certain questions for the Central Court. If you allowed 32 different minds to decide, without Gentleman behind him (Mr. G. B. any guide, from the Act itself, upon the questions they were to consider, how Could you possibly have uniformity? One Judge would say to a tenant-"You have occupied the land for 50 years; you have, therefore, had a long-continued enjoyment, and I shall only give you one year's compensation under the Disturbance Clause." Another Judge would say to a man in the same position-"You have occupied the land for many years, and are, therefore, deeply-rooted in the soil; I shall give you seven years' compensation." So, again, as to rent. One Judge would say "You have been allowed to live on the land upon very favourable terms; you must, therefore, have had three times over the benefit to which you were entitled;" while another Judge would say "The rent is so low that this is a really valuable holding, and you shall have seven years' compensation." He knew of no instance in which a matter of this importance was flung so entirely to the uncontrolled discretion of individuals; and we should probably have to say of this jurisdiction, what Selden said of equity that it varied with the length of the Chancellor's foot. It was quite clear that it was highly objectionable that 32 different Judges should be left to adjudicate on matters of such delicacy and difficulty, unguided and uncontrolled; and in respect of which, therefore, their views would necessarily be discordant. He was in hopes that the Government would have introduced words by which this objection would be obviated; but no standard was offered in the matter, and it was left wide to be the subject of arbitrary decisions. He had put on the Paper certain words, which he thought

Gregory), and he was not surprised that he did not support it. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to compel the Court to take into consideration the length of the tenancy and the amount of the rent paid; but the Government were of opinion that they gave the Court sufficient discretion under the clause as it stood to take those and all other matters bearing on the question which they would have to decide into account. As to the time which a tenant might be in occupation of his holding, it involved considerations of a most difficult and ambiguous kind. The loss which he might sustain might not at all depend on the length of that occupation. A tenant who had been a long time in occupation of a holding might, for instance, not have so great a claim to compensation as one who had been for a shorter time. A tenant naturally looked forward with the expectation of unbroken occupancy, unless by some fault of his own he forfeited his tenure. The mere fact that a tenant was not long in occupation was not in itself a sufficient. ground to ask Parliament to direct the Court to diminish or destroy the compensation due to the tenant; and the clause as it was framed being, in the opinion of the Government, calculated to give all that jurisdiction and discretion to the Court which it was advisable it should have, they could not agree to the Amendment.

MR. GORDON said, he was surprised that no indication had been given on the part of the Government that they intended to introduce Amendments into the clause. During the discussions on previous clauses they had frequently stated that, when the Committee came

DR. BALL said, he was certainly under the same impression as his hon. and learned Friend near him (Mr. Gordon), that it was the intention of the Government, when the Committee came to the 14th clause, to propose alterations in it so as to indicate more distinctly to the Judges what it was they were to take into account.

MR. MATTHEWS said, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when the question as to the length of a lease as connected with the claim for compensation was under discussion, to say that they would take some points relating to it into their consideration.

to the Equities Clause, they would take | consider any Amendments in it which into consideration the Amendments might be moved by others. which had been placed in the names of several hon. Members on the Paper; but now they declined to make any Amendment, so that many on his side of the House had been somewhat misled by their declarations. He was reminded by their conduct of an anecdote of a young counsel, who asked his leader what he should do in his absence, in the event of some difficulty being started by the Lord Chancellor, the answer of the latter being "Just say you are coming to that question, and then, perhaps, it will never be again taken up." In the same way, the Government, when any hon. Gentleman was about to propose an Amendment, said "Wait till you see the Equities Clause." But seeing that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland admitted that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman behind (Mr. G. B. Gregory) involved a difficult and ambiguous question, he could not understand why the matter should be left to the decision of 32 Judges and should not be settled by Parliament itself. He should suggest the postponement of the clause.

MR. GLADSTONE said, he believed that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gordon) had been misled, he had no one but himself to thank for it. He (Mr. Gladstone) admitted that the clause under discussion had been frequently referred to in the previous discussions of the Bill, on the Government side of the House, and that they had suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball) to postpone an Amendment of which he had given Notice on the 3rd clause, on the ground that the 14th clause was the place for it; but he must point out that the right hon. Gentleman had not thought fit to propose that Amendment; and the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had the boldness to find fault with the Government for not having adopted it and proposed it themselves. The Government approved the clause as it stood, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman disapproved it; yet he had no Amendment to propose while he blamed the Government for not proposing one. Though the Government had no modes of their own to suggest for improving the clause, they were perfectly ready to Mr. Gordon

MR. GLADSTONE said, it was quite true he had stated that, in his opinion, it would be impossible for the Court, in judging a claim for compensation for damages on eviction, not to take into account the length of the term for which the land had been held. Suppose a tenant were evicted at the end of a 14 years' lease, he should say that the Court would not give the same damages as to a tenant from year to year.

MR. GORDON said, he thought he was not incorrect in saying that the Government promised some amendment in reference to this matter. He submitted that the clause ought not to be proceeded with at present, but reserved for discussion at a subsequent period.

MR. GLADSTONE said, he must object to the postponement of the clause, which was absolutely necessary for the purpose of consolidating this portion of the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he wished to point out that the maximExpressio unius est exclusio alterius might operate in a manner not intended by those who wished the clause to be amended. The Government desired to do justice between both parties; and there was a danger lest, if a certain category of matters were specified, which were to be taken into consideration, the Courts might come to the conclusion that they were not at liberty to consider others. The Government thought it would be best to leave the clause as it stood; because, by enumerating all the particulars to which it should apply, they would be attempting a difficult if not an impossible task, while they would pro

bably omit something which might subsequently turn out to be very material. MR. SPENCER WALPOLE said, he had no doubt that the Government were right in vesting large powers somewhere for determining the equities between the parties. Still, unless there were some guidance given to the Judge, great difficulties would arise. Claim after claim would be adduced, the expenses would be enormously increased, and a proper decision would hardly ever be arrived at. This clause must be considered in conjunction with the two preceding ones. In his opinion, there ought to be a specific claim urged by the tenant and a specific answer made to it by the landlord, so that a clear issue might be presented to the Court. Indeed, he felt confident that unless something more specific was introduced into these three clauses, the measure would not be workable except at a great expense, a result which would clearly be for the benefit of the landlord.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that his right hon Friend (Mr. Spencer Walpole) objected to the clause on the ground that it was too general in its terms. The words of the clause were as follows:

"The Court shall take into consideration any such claim, objection, or set-off, also any such default or unreasonable conduct of either party as may appear to the Court to affect any matter in dispute between the parties,"

to take into consideration, the institution of trial by jury would be deprived of all its value. The same observations applied to the County Court Judges. This, he thought, was a better answer than any abstract reasoning could be to the objection raised by his right hon. Friend.

MR. MATTHEWS said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that juries were strictly tied down in every species of action with regard to the measure of damages. If a jury gave excessive damages, their verdict might be set aside and a new trial granted. It was a rule that the damages must represent the money value of the plaintiff's right which had been infringed. His objection to the Bill was, that it conferred on the tenant no specific right or privilege, though it granted him the vague power of claiming compensation. Under the clause the tenant would either get a good deal or nothing at all.

The

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) had, with an ingenuity he could not sufficiently admire, mixed up two wholly different things. His (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) remarks had reference, not to the quantum or amount of damages, but to the misconduct or default for which the damages were to be awarded. amount of damages was already limited by the scale of compensation, and consequently the limit the hon. Gentleman desired was already provided by the Bill. This was a distinct question, however, from that of allowing the Judge to decide what circumstances ought to be admitted as bearing on a particular claim. He could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that juries were strictly limited in the assessment of damages. Take, for example, the action at law, which was most similar to the case now under consideration. The Committee were considering the case of two persons who had entered into a contract which one of them put an end to, much to the disgust of the other. This was very much like a case of breach of promise of marriage. Could the hon. and learned Gentleman get up and define the exact scale of damages for such cases?

His right hon. Friend maintained that these terms were too vague, and that the subjects to be taken into consideration ought to be distinctly enumerated. Now, without arguing the point in the abstract, he would take a practical analogy. This was a question of finding damages, and damages were found in England not by the Judges to whom it was proposed to leave the assessment of them under this Bill, but by juries. Did anyone ever hear, however, of an Act of Parliament which tied up juries to deal only with certain matters? On the contrary, was it not notorious that the observation of juries ranged over the whole conduct and dealings of the parties, and that they took into consideration every circumstance they thought proper? It was admitted that the administration of justice by juries was found satisfactory in this country; but if an attempt were MR. WEST said, he hoped the Gomade to tie up juries by special enact-vernment would not permit the insertion ments as to the circumstances they were in the clause of any definition limiting [Committee-Clause 14.