venient point to report Progress. He did not think the Government wished to retain the clause, and he did not think they could have a better stopping place for the night. The Committee had made considerable progress, and it would be pressing them unduly hard to proceed further. He would move that Progress be reported. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Lord Randolph Churchill.) SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH hoped there would be some information as to whether the clause was to stand; it would be very inconvenient for hon. Members not to know. MR. CHAPLIN said, he had a Notice to omit the clause, and it would be satisfactory to know if the Government intended to persevere with it or not. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law) said, he did not wish the Committee to go beyond this clause. MR. GIBSON said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not quite apprehend what had been said. In consequence of the Amendments already made in the Bill, the Government would probably see that all the topics dealt with in the clause had been disposed of; but if they proceeded with the clause at all, it must lead to long discussion, and, it was obvious, could not be disposed of tonight. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL) said, it was not reasonable to ask what the Government intended to do on the Motion to report Progress. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL said, if the Government did not intend to press the clause, he would withdraw his Motion; but he would decline to do So if the Government retained the clause, in view of the fact that it must lead to a long discussion and the House met at 12 to-morrow. MR. CHAPLIN suggested that the Government should allow Progress to be reported, and then say if they intended to retain the clause. It would be a matter of convenience to all. MR. BIGGAR thought it was unreasonable to ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite to make up their minds as to striking out the clause in the absence of the Prime Minister, who had charge of the Bill; but, at the same time, it would be unreasonable to ask the Committee to sit later in view of the early Sitting next day. MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he would consent to Progress being reported; but he must consult with his right hon. Friend as to the clause. MR. WARTON wished to make two clauses should be reprinted as far as the suggestions-one was, that the amended. Committee had gone; and the other was, that as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had promised to consider an immense number of points on Report, a list of these should be printed and added to from time to time, to give some notion of the proposals that were to come. Question put, and agreed to. Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow. SOLICITORS' REMUNERATION BILL.-[Lords.] (Mr. Attorney General.) [BILL 100.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clause 1 (Short title; extent; interpretation). Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 26, after "1866," to insert "Provincial Law Societies or Associations' means all bodies of solicitors in England incorporated by Royal Charter, or under the Joint Stock Companies Act, other than the Incorporated Law Society above mentioned."—(Sir John Holker.) Question proposed, "That those words. be there inserted." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) asked what was the position of those bodies of solicitors incorporated under the Joint Stock Companies Act? SIR JOHN HOLKER said, he could not give the information. The Amendment was proposed by the Provincial Law Societies; they were anxious to have it inserted, and he had got them to draw it. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, if necessary, it might be amended on Report. He did not quite know to what it referred. LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.-[BILL 135.] Clause, as amended, agreed to, and Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, Mr. ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 severally agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 (Security for costs, and interest on disbursements). On the Motion of Sir JOHN HOLKER, the following Amendment made :-In page 3, line 15, leave out on money disbursed by a solicitor for his client." Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill. Remaining clauses agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill. House resumed. Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow. QUESTION. 1909 ADJOURNMENT-ORDERS OF THE DAY -ENTRIES ON NOTICE PAPER. MR. WARTON asked how it was that the Bills printed in the Orders of the Day were, in the first instance, a long list subject to alterations consequent on the Morning Sitting; and then in the evening a much shorter list was furnished? MR. SPEAKER: At the early Sitting of the House the House ordered the consideration of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill in Committee to be carried forward. That was done on the Order of the House. House adjourned at One o'clock. (Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.) COMMITTEE. [TWENTY-FIRST NIGHT.] [Progress 5th July.] Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) PART IV. PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTAL TO PRECEDING PARTS. Miscellaneous. Clause 12 (Sale of tenancy without notice of increase of rent). Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 7, after "tenancy," insert "under the provisions of the Act, and.” — (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL said, Progress was reported last night in some uncertainty as to whether the in the Bill or not, in view of its action Government intended to keep this clause upon He could not say that he understood exactly what course the Government really proposed to take, because the Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicksright hon. Baronet the Member for East which raised a very important question; Beach) had an Amendment on the Paper and, in the absence of the right hon. Baronet, he should certainly take the liberty of proposing it. the sub-section of a former clause. THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment referred to by the noble Lord is the one I have just put from the Chair. He will of the Day. find it given upon page 2 of the Orders | transfer to take place without any word of dispute about the rent, he was to hold his peace for ever, and was practically precluded from requiring a rise of rent afterwards. MR. MACFARLANE said, the first THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment moved by the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was still under discussion when Progress was reported last night; and, according to the usual practice, it has again been submitted to the Committee. The Question is, "That the words moved by the right hon. Gentleman be here inserted." LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL hoped that the Government would give the Committee some explanation of the meaning of the clause. MR. GLADSTONE: The purpose of the clause is a very narrow one. It is intended-I do not at all dissemble-to meet the case of something like fraud or trickery on the part of the landlord. At present there is a possibility of such a thing happening in the case of an unprincipled landlord, who, after the arrangements between the incoming man and the outgoing tenant have been completed, and the money paid, should, before accepting the incoming tenant, intimate his intention of requiring a rise of rent. It is a nice matter, perhaps, to deal with; but we are of opinion that the landlord should be under the same liabilities to the tenant in regard to fair dealing that the tenant is under to the landlord, and that there should be a clear understanding upon the subject. MR. GLADSTONE: If the landlord has accepted the incoming tenant, and the incoming man has now become his tenant, and the landlord then demands an increase of rent, there is nothing to prevent him from doing so. The object, of the clause is to make provision for this narrow point; it is considered that there may be an interval between the completion of the transaction by the old tenant and the introduction of the new tenant, during which the landlord may say to the new tenant-" You are now coming in; I do not refuse to accept you; but if you take this farm, you must take it under an increased rent." This clause would place the landlord under the same liabilities to the new tenant as to the old. MR. GIBSON said, the Prime Mi nister had presented the section in a very minimized and narrow point of view; but, in his (Mr. Gibson's) opinion, it was open to a far wider construction. He quite accepted the statement of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), that it was desirable, as far as possible, to lighten the ship. That he would be anxious to do if it was SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL said, he possible, especially in the present state had hoped that after what passed last night of the weather; but he thought that the Government would have announced the best way of lightening the ship in this morning that they were going to this instance would be to drop the drop the clause. It seemed to him a clause altogether. Of course, if the very complicated clause, and the com- Committee thought it desirable to deal plications of the Bill were such that it with the question now it could do so. was advisable to lighten the ship as There were two classes of tenancies dealt much as possible. He confessed that with-namely, present and future tenhe had never been fully able to under- ants. The position of a future tenant stand the object of the clause; and the was abundantly protected by sub-section statement which the right hon. Gentle- 3 of Clause 2 as amended. But the quesman the Prime Minister had just made tion of the present tenant, which he adgave it a much narrower scope than be- mitted to be an important question, was fore. He had understood that it was not left uncovered. "A present tenant had intended to guard against a kind of ample power, if he was dissatisfied with the fraud on the part of the landlord in rais-rise, to appeal to the Court and demand ing the rent between the sale of the tenancy and the acceptance of the new tenant. If the landlord allowed the that the Court should overrule the claim of the landlord to the extent to which it was unreasonable in the matter of rent. He wished to know whether those two questions did not dispose of the width of the drafting of the clause? It might be a very narrow and minute point which had been indicated by the Prime Minister, and it might require some further drafting; but, unquestionably, on that side of the House they could not allow the clause to remain in its present shape without a protest. Therefore, in the interest of the time of the Committee, he would ask the Government to withdraw the clause. If it went on, they would feel called upon to move Amendment after Amendment which stood on the Paper in order to prevent the wideness of the drafting of the clause being used in a way which was not intended. THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that, if the clause is to be discussed in detail, a discussion is now quite irregu upon lar. It must be taken when the Ques- that narrow point. But I do not think Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 13 (Regulations as to sales and application to Court to fix rent). MR. BIGGAR said, he wished to move the Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). The object of the Amendment appeared to be that if the landlord had an objection against the tenant before the judicial rent was fixed, he should place the tenant in a position that he would be able to sell the holding at a reasonable and fair price according to the merits of the case. It was obvious that if the rent was increased, and then the holding sold, the tenant would be placed at a disadvantage. Therefore, the Amendment was, he considered, a fair and reasonable one. It gave both the landlord and the tenant the opportunity of getting THE CHAIRMAN: The proposal is a fair price, and nothing more. to leave out the word " tenancy," in Amendment proposed, line 7, in order to insert the words "under the provisions of this Act, and." THE CHAIRMAN: It would be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment first, and after that is done the clause could be postponed, if desirable. MR. GLADSTONE: I see no objection to the postponement of the clause. It was not intended last night that the clause should be postponed, but that I should state to-day what the object of the clause was. I trust that the Committee will see that there is really some point in the clause. My object is simply to provide protection against a very dishonourable transaction aimed at a man before he becomes a tenant at all, either present or future; and the clause is intended to have its operation confined to Mr. Gibson In page 10, line 16, leave out from the word "proceedings" to "following," in line 25, and insert "Where proceedings other than proceedings in ejectment for non-payment of rent are taken by the landlord to compel a tenant to quit his holding the tenant may sell his tenancy at any time before, but not after, the execution of the writ or decree to possession, and thereupon such proceedings shall be stayed and wholly cease, and the purchaser shall hold such tenancy as if such proceedings had not been taken; and if judgment, or decree in ejectment, has been obtained before the passing of this Act, such tenant may, at any time before, but not after, the expiration of six months from the execution of a writ or decree to possession at any time before, but not after, the execution in an ejectment for non-payment of rent, and of such writ or decree to possession in an ejectment for non-payment of rent, and at any time before, but not after, the execution of such writ or decree in any ejectment other than for nonpayment of rent, apply to the Court to fix the judicial rent of the holding."-(Mr. Biggar.) Question proposed, "That the words 'where proceedings' stand part of the Clause." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW) thought that the hon. Member must have misconceived the object of the clause. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) could see no difference between the object which the hon. Member proposed to attain by the Amendment, and what was in the Bill already, except in one small matter of very trifling importance. If the Amendment were adopted in the very common case of an ejectment for nonpayment of rent, the tenant's power of selling would be gone. He thought that could hardly be the object of the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment left out all the first part of the clause, and accordingly left the tenant who was ejected for non-payment of rent without any power of sale. That, of course, was not intended. If the object was to enable a tenant who was ejected for non-payment of rent, as in other cases where proceedings were taken, to apply to the Court to fix a judicial rent, then that was expressly provided for by the Bill as it stood. The only difference in the Amendment was that it left the tenant entirely unprotected where he happened to be ejected for the non-payment of rent. MR. BIGGAR said, that under those circumstances, after the very fair explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, he would withdraw the Amendment. He might add that his hon. Friend, in whose name the Amendment stood, had not requested him to move it. MR. T. P. O'CONNOR would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland a question or two before the Amendment was withdrawn. This was one of the two clauses which affected a tenant who had entered into a contract with his landlord. He understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government were anxious to make provision for those tenants whose tenant right had been swallowed up by excessive rents, and by the proceedings of the landlord. As he understood the matter, a tenant who was at present engaged in legal proceedings with his landlord would only get six months, from the passing of the Act, in which to redeem himself, and put himself right so as to sell the advantages conferred upon him by the Act of 1870, and by this Bill. He wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether, if the Government thought it right to protect the tenants whose tenant right had been destroyed on account of bad seasons, and if they also thought it desirable that the protecting power of the clause should be limited to the short period of six months? The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that this distress was not a distress of last year, but that it had extended over two or three years." He would, therefore, respectfully suggest that the Government should increase the protection afforded to those unfortunate tenants, so that they might have an opportunity of recovering their position. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW) said, the clause must be read in conjunction with others. The condition laid down was that within this period of six months, if the rent still remained unpaid, and in one or two other cases specially provided for, litigation might be commenced and the tenant ejected. It would not be reasonable to require a more extended period to elapse before the landlord could have his remedy. The question which the hon. Member had just put related, he understood, to tenants now in difficulties. The Bill provided that they would have the same period of time up to which they would be able to redeem their position, and they might apply to the Court to fix a judicial rent. If they got a judicial rent fixed, they would have a statutable period of 15 years, during which they would be able to sell their rights. By sub-section 2, where the sale of a tenancy was delayed without default of the tenant, it was in the power of the Court to extend the time; and by one of the last clauses in the Bill, Clause 48, it was provided that, although the Court might not sit until October, and a tenant was unable to make an immediate application to the Court, he should be, if the Court thought proper, in the same position, and have the same rights in respect of his tenancy, as he would have been in and would have had, if the application had been made on the day on which the Act came into force. He thought that it was impossible to provide more reasonable arrangements generally in order to enable a tenant to realize the benefits of the Bill. MR. MACFARLANE also wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland a question. Were the proceedings referred |