reason for retaining the words was that they appeared in the corresponding section of the Civil Bill Courts Procedure Act. The Civil Bill Court dealt with the same class of cases, and it would be inconvenient to have a different set of rules regulating the practice where the proceedings were of the same class, held in the same Court, and employing the same officers. He desired to point out that any suitor might employ a solicitor to plead, if he choose, before the Land Commission; and really all the words would do would be to prevent a suitor having to pay double fees-to one solicitor for getting up the case, and fees to another who, from his speech, would act as advocate. MR. HEALY supported the Amendment, and considered it would prove of advantage to the suitor. He could see nothing in the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland but the legal desire to make things square. Really, the cases to be brought before the Civil Bill Court and the Land Commission were altogether distinct. powers of MR. GIVAN, as a practising solicitor, said he wished to testify to the inconvenience caused by the words of the clause proposed to be retained. The bringing of eminent advocates from a distance generally caused waste of time; and the inconvenience would be met if the suitor was allowed to employ a second solicitor, when he had a large number of witnesses to examine. MR. MITCHELL HENRY said, the object should be to cheapen litigation as much as possible for the suitor. Although he did not think the leaving out of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would have that effect, he thought a solicitor should be empowered to argue the case in the Court, instead of having one solicitor preparing the case and another arguing it. MR. LEAMY said, many solicitors would be infinitely preferable to young barristers in cases arising under the Bill; and were they to deprive a tenant of the best advocate he could get, simply because he happened to be a solicitor? MR. FINDLATER warmly approved of the Amendment. Hitherto, barristers had everything their own way; and, in his opinion, the retention of the words in the clause was intended to preserve The Attorney General for Ireland the monopoly which the Bar and Bench had heretofore enjoyed. MR. BIGGAR said, he must press the Amendment to a division, for he thought the Government was much to blame in refusing to accept it. Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 161; Noes 41: Majority 120. (Div. List, No. 333.) 66 Amendment, to add, after the word MR. HEALY moved, as a further sanction of the Court." He thought the 'solicitor," the words "unless with the Government, after accepting his Amendment in Committee, should have no obtion they proposed was not at all in the jection to omit these words. The limitaspirit of his Amendment. Amendment proposed, In line 5, after the second word," solicitor," to insert the words "except with the sanction of the Court."-(Mr. Healy.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law) said, he was sorry It would be throwing the odium of rehe could not accept the Amendment. fusing on the Court, and pressure would be put upon them to grant their sanction. The clause was simply a copy of one in the English County Court Act. MR. DAWSON remarked, that if it was the manifest wish of the people that a second solicitor should be employed, tion to accede to it. the Government should have no objection to accede to it. MR. BIGGAR said, that the rule in all County Courts was for solicitors to practise, and not barristers. He thought the Government should accept the Amend ment. MR. LEAMY said, there was very good ground why the Amendment should be accepted. Question put. The House divided :-Ayes 35; Noes 180: Majority 145.- (Div. List, No 334.) Clause added. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW) moved, in page 28, after Clause 45, to insert the following Clause : of per "A landlord, being a limited owner as defined by the twenty-sixth section of The Landlord and Tenant Act, 1870,' may, in case of purchase by the tenant from the Land Commission under the provisions of this Act, exercise, with the sanction of the Court, to the same extent as if he were an absolute owner, the power mitting any sum to remain on mortgage, not exceeding one-fourth in amount of the price which the tenant, under the provisions of this Act, may pay as purchase money to the Land Commission, such mortgage however to be subject to any charge of the Land Commission; and the principal moneys arising from such mortgage shall be dealt with in the manner provided by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts with respect to the purchase money or compensation coming to persons having limited interests." rapidly increase the number of peasant proprietors. He could not understand why the Government would not accept the Amendment, unless they were afraid of too great haste in the establishment of that class of the people. Clause brought up, and read the first and second time. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill." MR. GLADSTONE said, there was no jealousy of the clause as tending to a too rapid creation of peasant proprietors; and the only question on which he of some one interested in Irish land, or should have liked to hear the opinion who represented that interest, was the question of the position of the remainder man in or under the clause-whether it was compatible with the practice of the Courts to leave him in the position of a person having a fourth of his interest standing out on second mortgage. For his part, he was inclined to think the clause was in the nature of a blow at limited ownership. He was not objecting to that, provided it was a blow fairly struck. In truth, the upshot of the matter was this. As far as the Government were concerned, they had no prejudice to the clause, provided it was one that was generally recognized by all concerned as equitable in spirit, and to be adopted on the whole in the interests of all parties; but he should be against their placing themselves in the position of having done an injustice to any person by the insertion of such a clause, and, even at that late period, he would wish to leave the ultimate judgment until they had received more light upon the subject. The hon. Member said he hoped that the clause would meet with support from both sides of the House. It was introduced in the interest of the landlords as well as in that of the tenants, and would work no injustice to the State. He believed that many of the landlords in Ireland, four-fifths of whom were limited owners, would be glad to sell portions MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY supported of their estates, especially outlying pro- the clause, which he considered a most perties, if enabled by this clause to re-important one, especially in Ireland, ceive three-fourths of the price from the Commissioners and to leave the balance out on a mortgage, the security of which would increase year by year, as the charge to the Land Commission was paid off. Nor would the remainder man suffer, because the security in the hands of the trustees after the operation would be a portion of the value of the estate realized in cash, and the balance a charge on the land, the sum of these being equal to the present value of the estate, no more and no less. The clause would where there was so much of the land held in settlement. This was a question of value, the real question to be determined being the value of the estate. Such matters could be far better decided by the Court which was selling the estate, and knew its value and conditions, the character of the tenants, and all about the security that the land would offer, than by the Court of Chancery. trusted the clause would be adopted in one form or another, as he thought it would be a boon to the small farmers, He if it could be worked fairly to the remainder man. The power was to be exercised by the limited owner only with the sanction of the Court, and it might, perhaps, be provided that the Court should have regard to the interests of the remainder man. The curse of Ireland was limited ownership heavily incumbered. MR. VILLIERS STUART, speaking as a landlord, hoped the clause would be accepted by the Government in some form. Four-fifths of the estates in Ireland were held under limited ownership; and if no such provision were inserted in the Bill, the good effect of the Purchase Clauses would be much curtailed. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) as to the evil of limited ownerships. MR. GIBSON said, that, while anxious to meet any great public want, in common with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he saw great difficulties in carrying out the clause as now framed if it were added to the Bill. He would have been glad if it had been presented in Committee, so that it could have been discussed in a more conversational manner, for the object of the clause was a good one. It provided that the limited owner should practically be treated as if he were the absolute owner, and that was a serious provision, as it practically left but little discretion to the Court. Then, again, the interest of minors would be prejudicially affected, from the fact that the Government would have a first charge to the extent of three-fourths of the purchase money, leaving the security for charges for minor children very small indeed. He would gladly consider any clause which would give facilities to tenants to purchase their holdings on conditions which would be fair to all parties; but that object could hardly be attained by the clause of his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Shea). He objected to its being added to the Bill in its present shape; and, in fact, should have criticized its being read a second time if it had not been for the fact that his attention was taken off the discussion until the clause had passed the second reading. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law) said, he was glad the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) was favourable to Mr. O'Shaughnessy the object of the clause. But there was certainly a difficulty about it as it stood, and he would see if by any amendment of the Bill, he could overcome it. MR. GIVAN thought it better for a matter of this kind to be dealt with by subsequent legislation, altogether independent of the Bill, as it would be throwing an amount of extra work on the Land Commission, and he would, therefore, suggest that the clause should be withdrawn. MR. O'SHEA said, he would withdraw his clause. Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn. MR. SPEAKER said, that the next clause on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Lincolnshire, proposed to be inserted after Clause 7, providing that the Commission should be enabled to purchase encumbered estates where the judicial rent was less than the public charges, was out of Order. It involved a money charge upon the people, and could not be proposed without the sanction of a Committee of the House. MR. VILLIERS STUART moved, in page 15, after Clause 20, insert the following Clauses : (Tenant obtaining advance from Land Commission may be required to let part of his holding to his labourers.) "Before making any advance to a tenant for the purpose of supplying money for the purchase of a holding, the Land Commission may, where the holding is fifty acres or more in extent, require as a condition of such advance that such part or parts of the holding as the Land Commission shall select shall, so long as any portion of the advance remains unpaid, be let by the tenant in plots of one-half of an acre to time employed by him in the cultivation of the holding at a weekly or other rent to be fixed by the Land Commission: Provided always, the provisions of this section, to let to his lathat in no case shall a tenant be required, under bourers more than one-fiftieth part of his holding.' each or thereabouts to the labourers from time "Any land may be taken by the Land Commission for the purpose of reselling or reletting the same or any part of it to labourers in plots each. The land so to be taken shall adjoin or or allotments not exceeding one-half an acre be near to labourers' dwellings, or to villages in which there are six or more labourers' dwellings. "The price to be paid by the Land Commission for any land taken under the powers of this section shall be settled under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts. The sale by the Land Commission of a plot or allotment to a labourer shall be in consideration of a principal sum to be paid as the whole price, and the Land Commission may advance to such labourer the whole or any part of such principal sum; any such advance shall be repaid and secured to the Land Commissioners in the manner provided by section twenty-two. "A plot or allotment may be let by the Land Commission to a labourer on such terms as they shall approve. "Any land taken by the Land Commission under the powers of this section and not sold or let by them to labourers, may be sold by them under the provisions of section twenty-one." (Delivery of possession of allotment wrongfully overheld.-Compensation for crops.) "Where under the provisions of this Act any plot or allotment has been let by the Land Commission to a labourer, or by a tenant to a labourer in his employment, the 15th section of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851, shall be applicable to the delivery of the possession of such plot or allotment when wrongfully overheld in the same manner as it would now apply to the delivery of the possession of any tenement within the said Acts: Provided always, that where the labourer shall have sown or planted on the plot or allotment any growing crop which he shall be unable to save by reason of the determination of the tenancy, the justices shall, by a distinct order, fix such sum (if any) as they shall think a fair compensation to him for the loss of such crop, after all just and proper deductions on account of any arrear of rent then due, and no warrant shall issue to execute the order for possession until the sum so fixed by order for compensation shall have been paid or tendered to the tenant." The hon. Member said the case of the farm labourers had been put so fully before the House, and had raised so much sympathy from hon. Members, that he thought he could take their case as accepted, more especially as the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was carried the other day without a division. The object of the clauses was to extend to those cases under which the Land Commission assisted tenants to purchase holdings, the same conditions with regard to farm labourers as had already been passed in those cases where a judicial rent was fixed. Clauses brought up, and read the first time. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clauses be now read a second time." MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he could not accept the clauses, for he did not see how they could put the tenant into a different position in this respect, merely because he had applied to purchase his holding. Question put, and negatived. MR. SPEAKER said, that the next clause on the Paper, standing in the name of Mr. Parnell, proposed to be inserted after Clause 26, and providing for the reclamation and improvement of waste land, was out of Order, for the same reason that applied to the former one proposed by Mr. Chaplin. Clause 1 (Sale of tenancies). MR. BIGGAR proposed to omit from sub-section 3 the words "or in the event of disagreement may be ascertained by the Court to be the true value thereof." The preceding words of the section were "On receiving such notice the landlord may purchase the tenancy for such sum as may be agreed upon." Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 18, to leave out after the word" upon," to the end of sub-section (3).— (Mr. Biggar.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill." MR. GLADSTONE said, if the Government were to modify in any manner this principle of pre-emption, as laid down in the clause, which had been so fully discussed and approved of by an enormous majority of the House, they should be opening the entire Bill to rediscussion without the slightest prospect of arriving at a more satisfactory conclusion. When he remembered the feeling, almost of despair, with which the Government had viewed the question whether they would ever get through the clause in Committee, and the relief they felt when they did get through it, he could only express a hope that the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) would not subject them to a repetition of that dreary experience. He should look upon the acceptance of the Amendment as a distinct breach of faith on the part of the Government. MR. HEALY said, the matter had been decided by the Committee; and, although he regretted the decision which had been arrived at, yet he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 21, to leave out the words some other person than the landlord," in order to insert the words "a proposed incoming tenant,❞—(Mr. Warton,) -instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law) said, he could not accept the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed, pre In page 2, line 13, to leave out sub-section 7, and insert the words "Where permanent improvements have been made on a holding by the landlord or his predecessors in title solely or by him or them jointly with the tenant or his decessors in title, and the landlord, on the application of the tenant, consents that his property in such improvements shall be sold along with the tenancy, and the same is so sold accordingly, the purchase-money shall be apportioned by the Court as between the landlord's property in such improvements and the tenancy and the part of the purchase-money so found to represent the landlord's property in such improvements (but subject to any set-off claimed by the tenant) shall be paid to the landlord; and such improvements so sold shall be deemed to have been made by the purchaser of the tenancy," THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR line 24, insert as a new sub-section : (5.) If the tenant fails to give the landlord The right hon. and learned Gentleman Amendment agreed to; sub-section inserted accordingly, and consequent alterations made in numbers of following sub-sections. On Motion of Mr. GIBSON, Amendment made in sub-section (6), page 2, line 9, after the word " debt," by inserting the words "including arrears of rent." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law) said, that in order to redeem a promise made in Committee, he would move the deletion of the 7th sub-section, and the substitution of one providing for the apportionment by the Court of the purchase money as between the tenancy and the landlord's property in improvements executed by him solely or jointly with the tenant; and that such improvements so sold shall be deemed to have been made by the purchaser of the tenancy. -instead thereof. Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived. Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." MR. LALOR pointed out several objections to the paragraph. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL) said, he could assure the hon. Member that his objections were only imaginary. Where the landlord and the tenant agreed that the landlord's improvements should be sold to an incoming tenant, so that they might be dealt with in the same way as if they were the tenant's improvements, then the Court, out of the purchase-money, would apportion to the landlord such sum as represented his property in the improvements as distinguished from the tenant's interest in the holding. MR. DAWSON said, it would be necessary for the protection of the tenants that the Court should on their behalf make the inquiries requisite. MR. GLADSTONE said, he did not see what protection the tenants required. It was provided that the landlord should receive compensation for his improvements out of the purchasemoney. This, of course, would be borne in mind at the time the sale took place. MR. MACARTNEY said, he thought the landlord who had made improvements and laid out his capital upon them was somewhat prejudiced by this proposal. MR. BIGGAR proposed an Amendment omitting certain words, |