to the same effect; and only a little while ago the Prime Minister reverted almost to the position that he took up at that time to justify the proposal to confine this provision which is now before us to leases made since the pass ing of the Act of 1870. He has quoted that Act as being one by which Parliament has given special facilities and special inducements to landlords to give leases. But now we are told-"Oh, we see there may have been cases, and there have been cases, in which this power has been used in a way which was not in accordance with the intentions of the framers of the Act." Well, I really do not know where we are to stop. If the lease was obtained by anything in the nature of fraud, it is admitted that there are means, by going to the ordinary tribunals of the country, to set aside its provisions. But this is not a case of fraud-it is a case in which some undue influence is supposed to have been used, or a threat of eviction. But what is meant by "a threat of eviction?" I thought that compensation for disturbance was exactly the weapon by which a threat of eviction was to be parried, and that whenever the landlord, after the passing of the Act of 1870-for it is only of that that we are now speaking-threatened to evict the tenant, the tenant would be able to say-"If you turn me out you will have to give me a very large amount of compensation." Therefore, this threat of eviction is a very different thing from what it may have been in former times, before this compensation for disturbance was granted. Then I should like to know what is to be considered "undue influence ?" We heard in one instance that a tenant was induced to take a lease because he was moved by the wish of his wife, who did not like to leave the holding. You may say that that was an undue influence. In fact, you may say that anything and everything except the mere consideration of how much money can be made by the business of a farmer is an undue influence; and if a man is induced, by any personal consideration whatever, to give a certain rent for a farm for a certain period, he may be said to have been actuated by some influence other than the mere commercial one, and it might be called "undue." We have no test or guide as to how the words would be construed; all we know is that they are not likely to be construed as a Court of Equity would construe them. But where are we to stop? The Prime Minister told us this afternoon that there is no use in using arguments which turn on the question of consistency or change of front, and I quite agree with him that those are arguments on which we should not lay excessive strength. But the real question is whether, in cases of this sort, what is proposed to be done is in itself equitable and is in itself expedient. Now, it appears to me that it is very questionable in equity to allow a contract deliberately entered into between persons of full competency to enter into contracts, and entered into with the deliberate consent of the Legislature, as in the case of these 31 years' leases, to be broken and set aside, because the tenant, on reflection, does not happen to like it. When one states a case in that way, it naturally limits the objection very materially. But the real question is-"What does this mean?" because you have a very undefined ground upon which you have to go. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) told us some time ago there was nothing sacred in parchment or sealing wax. Think what mischief you are doing by establishing precedents and rendering leases and contracts so insecure as you are about to make them. If you are going to lay down doctrines by which contracts in years to come may be set aside in the easy manner in which it is now proposed that these contracts should be set aside, or by which facilities should be given to destroy or greatly weaken the confidence between man and man which the system of contract is intended to build up, it seems you are doing a most unwise thing. I want to know whether, after the passing of this Act, we are to expect that there will be any more leases at all? Although a lease may be made much more in favour of the tenant than the landlord, the landlord is undoubtedly bound by it, and however the holding may increase in value he cannot raise the rent; whereas we know very well that if the profits fell off the tenant can give up the farm and the landlord cannot enforce the rents. Is there to be no equality in the treatment of the two parties? The hon. Member for Wexford, in a few sentences which had a very fair ring about them, said he wished to do equal justice to the landlord and tenant; but I do not see any thing here which is to give the landlord any relief if he had the misfortune to enter into a bad bargain. Suppose a tenant has been induced by undue influences to enter into a bargain, and that for several years his profits have been much greater than he anticipated, when a bad time came he could break the lease. It would matter nothing if he had made a great deal on the farm previously; and although years might have elapsed since he entered into the agreement, he could break the lease if he could prove undue influence. But how are you going to prove undue influence? In a great many cases the evidence may not be forthcoming, the original parties may be dead, you may have to deal with representatives, and you will have great difficulty in giving effect to these matters, and, at the same time, you will run the risk of committing great injustice. The task which is assigned to your Commission to fix a fair rent even for existing tenancies is an extremely right task; but when, in addition, you throw upon them the duty of finding what would have been a fair rent 10 years ago-and they could only gather that from the imperfect evidence of some of the parties to the transaction -you put upon them a duty which it will be almost impossible for them to perform properly. I am quite aware the Committee must submit to whatever the Government may desire and press in this matter; but we must enter our protest against the adoption of a principle which appears to be fundamentally unsound and inexpedient, and which, if allowed to go unchallenged, must result in the development of principles still more dangerous. MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) has made an extract from my speech on this subject in 1870. I wish to assist in giving to the Committee and to hon. Gentlemen opposite a little more light as to what my view in 1870 was concerning the nature of leases; and I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend, owing to some inadvertence possibly, completely failed to read a material part of the passage in which I explained my view. I say in that speech, on page 48 of the corrected report Sir Stafford Northcote "A landlord, then, may, according to the 16th clause, exempt his lands from being subject to being subject to the scale of damages, provided any custom, except the Ulster Custom or from he agrees to give the tenant a lease such as I will now describe. First, it must be for thirty-one years; and, secondly, it must leave to the tenant at the end of those thirty-one years a right to head of tillages and manures, claim compensation under three heads-first, the secondly, for permanent buildings; and, thirdly, for the reclamation of land. But besides this, the lease must be, in regard to rent and to covenants, approved by the Court."-[3 Hansard, cxcix. 377-8.] That, Sir, is the view upon which my right hon. Friend seeks to convict me and show me up for inconsistency, because we now say that the landlords who have inserted in leases covenants whereby the tenant renounces the claim to improvements at the end of the lease have acted contrary to the spirit and meaning of the Act. If hon. Gentlemen will turn to the first print of the Act of 1870 and to the 16th clause, they will see that it is there provided that a landlord may tender to a tenant a lease of a holding for a term certainly not less than 31 years, upon such terms as the Court may think fair. Such was the policy upon which the charge of inconsistency is now based. MR. CHAPLIN said, he knew not how the right hon. Gentleman might stand with regard to consistency with what he said in 1870; but there appeared to be some slight inconsistency with what he had stated earlier in the evening. He had said that a lease, in the opinion of the tenants since 1870, meant the fixing of a settled rent and nothing else; and to-night he had pointed with triumph to his own description of a lease at that time which, so far from being a fixed rent, included tillage and manures, and covenants to be approved by the Court. What became of his arguments of a few hours ago? He (Mr. Chaplin) protested against the doctrines which had been advanced under the form of this Amendment. The Prime Minister would say to the leaseholder-"It is true that you have entered into solemn contracts and engagements, and my advice is, adhere to these engagements as long as they are profitable; but the day and the hour that you find them to your disadvantage, cast them to the winds." Why, he had asked, should the tenants in Ireland, if they had suffered up to now, continue to suffer any longer? He would give the right hon. Gentleman one answer. The right hon. Gentleman had himself said, when passing the Act of 1870 "This Bill will proceed on the principle . . that from the moment the measure is passed every Irishman, small and great, must be absolutely responsible for every contract into which he enters."-[Ibid. 380.] MOTIONS. 1001 POTATO CROP COMMITTEE, 1880. RESOLUTION. MAJOR NOLAN, in rising to move a Resolution upon the question of the Potato Crop in Ireland, said, he was anxious to take a division on this subject, if the Government would not acThere had been cept his Resolution. years Was it conceivable that that language to break their leases? Question put. The Committee divided:-Ayes 201; Noes 109: Majority 92.-(Div. List, No. 315.) THE CHAIRMAN: The acceptance of this Amendment rules out Amendments standing in the names of Mr. M'Coan, Mr. W. J. Corbet, Mr. Macfarlane, Mr. Shaw, Mr. J. N. Richardson, Mr. Marum, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Charles Russell, and Mr. Givan. MR. MACFARLANE moved an Amendment to provide that where a tenant had been induced to sign away his rights under the Ulster, or any other custom, the landlord should be able to prove that such resignation of those rights had been given for valuable consideration. Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 29, at end of Clause, to add "Provided such Ulster or other custom has been obtained for a valuable consideration." (Mr. Macfarlane.) great danger of a potato famine in Ireland; but it was prevented by the happy chance of a good new crop. Since then a Committee had been appointed on the question, and they had made recommendations which they believed would prevent the immediate recurrence of the plague. In the first place, they recommended that some small experiments should be made; and, in the next place, that new varieties of potatoes should be introduced into Ireland, as it had been found that some kinds of potatoes wore out sooner than others. It would be easy to establish new varieties; but no one would undertake the task, as it was not a paying speculation. The potato crop was estimated at about £12,000,000 or £13,000,000 a-year. The third recommendation of the Committee was that small farmers should have brought within their power the means of purchasing good sound seed. It was said that that should be left to private enterprize; but private enterprize had never done anything in Ireland. He believed if the Government would place within the reach of the Question proposed, "That those words small farmers good sound seed, in that be there added." way they would confer an inestimable boon on Ireland. For this purpose he believed the best machinery would be the Poor Law Unions. His Resolution would not bind the Government, for he had made it as general as possible; and, with the leave of the House, he would now move it. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that Her Majesty's Government should take steps to carry into effect such of the recommendations of the Potato Crop Committee of 1880 as relate to Ireland, by promoting the creation and establishment of new varieties of ther experiments as the best means of lessening the Potato; by facilitating the progress of fur the spread of the Potato Disease; and by bringing within the reach of small farmers supplies of sound seed to be obtained for cash payments."-(Major Nolan.) MR. W. E. FORSTER said, no one could complain of the manner in which the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) had brought the subject forward. His proposals in the Seeds Act certainly did an immense amount of good in Ireland. He was also justified in the tone he took as to the Committee of last year. The Report of that Committee was most useful, and the evidence collected supplied much valuable information. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) was sorry he could not, on behalf of the Government, accept the Motion, for it would commit to the Government a duty they could hardly perform. They could not undertake to promote the creation and establishment of new varieties of the potato; but as to giving facilities for experiments to check the spread of disease, so far as these could be afforded through the means of the model farms, he was ready to give them. He would give that assurance; but he saw no advantage in making that an actual Resolution of the House in favour of a series of vague experiments. To the latter part of the Resolution, that the Government should bring within the reach of small farmers supplies of sound seed, to be obtained for cash payments, he objected as a duty which the Government could not undertake; but the model farms had proved themselves useful institutions, and he would have the subject brought before them, so that they should do all they could to encourage the object that the hon. and gallant Member had in view. not the Government itself. This matter, was of the greatest importance to Ireland, and his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan) had done good service in bringing it forward. He sincerely hoped the Government would give a little more practical assistance than platonical advice to the model farms to look after it. Of so much importance was the matter, that he hoped a division would be taken to test the feeling of the House. MR. HEALY said, he should like to suggest that the Government should do something in the way of experiments, by placing a small sum for the purpose upon the Estimates-say, £100. That was not much to ask, considering the amount of taxation Ireland paid, and the value she received in return. According to Thorn's Statistics, the value of the potato crop, in good years, amounted to £12,000,000, and by the failures caused by bad seed this had fallen to £3,000,000-a total loss from this cause of £9,000,000 in the produce of the country. For the sake of a little expenditure on behalf of the Government, was all this waste to go on? It was when dealing with such subjects that Irishmen felt the want of a Parliament of their own. On such a matter, involving so much national interest, no National Assembly would begrudge a little expenditure. A sum of £100 would enable Professor Baldwin and his staff to do much in the way of experiment. Land League model farms, which the MR. MITCHELL HENRY said, he MR. O'SHEA said, the reply of the was glad to hear that the Government right hon. Gentleman illustrated the would direct the attention of the model necessity of the appointment of a Minis- farms to the subject, and he hoped that ter of Agriculture, for it was absurd these experiments might be supplethat there should be no means of pro-mented by other experiments on the viding due protection for the staple produce of the country. As to the dignity of the Government being brought into question in the matter, there need be no anxiety upon that point. It was not intended that they should be agents for the supply of new seed, but only that they should help, to some extent, in providing the means for obtaining it. The right hon. Gentleman said he would give advice to the model farms, and, no doubt, that would be useful; but what was proposed was, not that the Government should take on itself the distribution of seed, but that this should be done through the Poor Law Guardians, who had already done it, more or less satisfactorily -they would be the distributing agents, MAJOR NOLAN said, that for the purpose of carrying out experiments, one or two farms should be taken temporarily for a few years. He did not think model farms could do everything; what was wanted was the raising of new varieties of seed. Model farms were always anxious to produce good balances, and the raising of new kinds of potatoes was not a paying operation; so, with the desire to show a good balance, proper attention would not be bestowed on the experiments. Some more assistance was wanted, some increase in the Estimates. As to the dignity of the House and the Government not being compatible with dealing in a staple of food, really he could not regard that as an argument; the Poor Law Guardians would do it. SIR JOHN LUBBOCK said, the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) had so mixed up two entirely different questions that he would prevent many hon. Members from supporting his Resolution. There was a great deal to be said in favour of experiments that would throw light upon the nature of potato disease, and it could hardly be expected that these would be undertaken by individuals at their own expense. But the third part of the Resolution was of a very different character. He did not see how the Government could undertake to bring sound seed within the reach of farmers. If potato seed, then it might apply to all seeds; and that would be entering into a business Government was quite unfitted to carry on. If the Resolution were modified by the omission of the latter part of it, then he would support it. MAJOR NOLAN said, as the hon. Member for the London University (Sir John Lubbock) was a very high authority, he would be happy to withdraw the latter part of his Motion. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member can, with the leave of the House, withdraw the whole of his Motion, and bring it up again in an amended form. MAJOR NOLAN asked, could he bring it up again now? MR. SPEAKER: No; the hon. and gallant Member cannot take that course. MR. DENIS O'CONOR asked, would it not be open to an hon. Member to move to amend the Resolution? MB. SPEAKER: It is open to an hon. Member to do so. the Resolution; but he should prefer that the Resolution should run "By facilitating the progress of further experiments as to the best means of lessening the spread of the potato disease and promoting the creation and establishment of new varieties of the potato." But he supposed he was too late in proposing this alteration. MR. SPEAKER: If the Amendment and the Motion are withdrawn, the Resolution could be brought up in the form proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. MAJOR NOLAN said, he should like to know if the Government would bring it up, so that it might be passed this Session? MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he would put it on for the next night. He wished to avoid any misunderstanding; he could not undertake that a Vote should be placed on the Estimates this year; but he would make it his duty to consult Professor Baldwin and others, to obtain information as how to best carry out the progress of experiments, and the best means of arriving at the result desired. MAJOR NOLAN said, but would the Resolution be passed this year? MR. W. E. FORSTER said, yes; he would put it on the Paper at once. Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn. POOR RELIEF AND AUDIT OF Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE and Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR be added to the Select Committee on the said Bill."—(The Lord Advocate.) EARL PERCY said, some reason should be forthcoming for these additions, for there were already 19 Members nominated. The practice of increasing the number of Members on Committees was growing very prevalent. He was not aware why two more names should be added to the 19. THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN) said, he might inform the noble Earl that the hon. Baronet the Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), whose name it was proposed to add, took a very active part in the Committee of 1871 which sat on the |