which would make it compulsory on the Court not to give relief in cases of subdivision until the wrong had been re marked that they might trust to the discretion of the Court. But he said that they could not trust the discretion of the Court if they allowed it to over-dressed. Almost all the Gentlemen who ride what they had previously said should rest absolutely in the sanction of the landlord. Supposing a man on a farm of 200 acres were to sub-let it to four thoroughly respectable solvent men. It might be true that under the words "it shall not be lawful" they would have no legal estate; but if they had the possession the landlord had only the power of serving them with a notice to quit on which to found an ejectment. What good was that to him? The only remedy he had they took away by giving the Court the liberty of saying "You have suffered no appreciable damage; you have four solvent tenants on your land, and therefore we will give you nothing." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW) said, he wished to call attention to the second condition, which was, that the tenant must be justly entitled to the relief he sought. MR. MARUM said, he would not go into the details of the matter. He thought the objections to them had been satisfactorily answered. But, upon the general principle of the measure, he must remind the Committee that one of the greatest objections to the Bill was the difference between these present and future tenancies, which made the severity of the statutory conditions. Public opinion with regard to the acceptance of the Bill in Ireland depended very much upon the question of whether the severity of the statutory conditions would be mitigated or not. He assured hon. Members that that question was so strongly felt that a meeting of the Catholic hierarchy had been held, at which a most emphatic resolution was passed and forwarded to the Prime Minister, asking him to do away with the distinction altogether. MR. MITCHELL HENRY said, he was so greatly against turning any man out of his holding for breaches of statutory conditions that he would be disposed to go even further than the Bill. He should vote for the Amendment, because he did not think it was a just thing to turn out men on that account. But he should vote with very much greater pleasure if the Attorney General for Ireland would put in some words had spoken in that debate had represented constituencies in the North and South, and they had not spoken of the West. His contention was entirely in the interest of the country. Sub-division was the curse of the Western portion of Ireland, and it was perfectly true that under that Bill sub-division would be illegal and perfectly null and void. It was illegal now; but it went on every day, and they could not stop it. What he wanted was to prevent the notion in the minds of the tenants that it was a thing that could be done, and that they could continue to sub-divide their holdings in the most reckless manner. Let them take the case of a farm at £20 a-year, sub-let to four solvent tenants. The Court might very well say that those four young fellows could just as well pay their £5 apiece as one pay £20, and, therefore, that no such injury was done as would compel those tenants to go out. Well, he thought the very greatest injury was done, not merely to the landlords, but to the tenants themselves. Where lands were sub-divided they became simply homes of pauperism. He would rather that the Attorney General for Ireland should consider on Report whether he could not insert some words which would make clear to the tenant classes that which ought to be made clear to them-namely, that the Court would not sanction sub-division, but that they would compel restitution of the holding in the condition in which it was before it was sub-let. MR. GLADSTONE said, that before a tenant could go before the Court adequate measures would have to be taken to make everything in the nature of compensation for damage that had been done to the landlord. Those measures ought not to be limited to subletting only, but to all breaches of statutory conditions. ŠIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT said, that if that were the opinion of the Prime Minister and his Legal Advisers, how easy it would be to introduce some words to carry it into effect at that present moment; and he would suggest that the words should be added-" And that the breach complained of no longer exists." The Attorney General for Ireland had stated that if the breach was in regard to some technical matter it would be very hard to turn the tenant out. But the first thing the tenant had to do was to say -"I see I was wrong, and the breach of which the landlord complains no longer exists." Those words would materially improve the Bill; and he ventured to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he would not add to his Amendment-"And that the breach complained of no longer exists." MR. T. D. SULLIVAN said, that it seemed to him that the object of the Amendment was to enable the Court to exercise to some extent the faculty of mercy. Now, in most offences there was a maximum and a minimum punishment; but, without that Amendment, the Court would have no option but to allow the landlord to evict the tenant. A great deal had been said on the subject of sub-division, and they had been told that it was the curse of Ireland. It had been already stated, and it was true that in some cases subdivision was very injurious; and it was equally true that there was great opportunity for sub-division in many parts of Ireland, with great advantage to the public interest. He hoped the Amendment would be passed. He thought it a great hardship that for every breach of statutory conditions there should be only one punishment-namely, eviction. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW) said, that he was afraid the words suggested by the hon. and gallant Baronet would not be of any use. It would be difficult to insert the words but he was perfectly ready to undertake to consider before the Report whether they might not insert some words providing that the tenant must restore matters to their former condition. now; MR. BIGGAR said, that what the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) seemed to want was that someone else should put the law in motion against the tenants, instead of taking proceedings himself. The hon. Gentleman really had full power to make the tenants do as he wished; but, as he was Member for the County of Galway, he did not wish to have it announced that he himself was taking proceedings, as that would render him exceedingly unpopular among his constituents. He should like to corroborate the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) Sir Walter B. Barttelot | in stating that in some cases sub-division might be very beneficial, not only to the tenant, but to the community at large, and would certainly not be in the slightest degree injurious to the landlord." Question put. The Committee divided :-Ayes 251 Noes 147: Majority 104.-(Div. List, No. 292.) MR. BARRY, in moving, in page 11, line 5, after the word "ejectment," to insert "Upon a twelve months' notice to pay or discharge not less than twelve months' arrears of rent due at the date of such notice," and far as not herein otherwise provided," said, that unless some such Proviso as in this Amendment were inserted, the clause would operate hardly upon some tenants in circumstances largely beyond their control, and there would be no safety for a tenant in arrears. They knew very well that the fair landlords would not enforce the law harshly; but, on the other hand, there were laudlords who would do so. Therefore, the effect of his Amendment would be to give the sanction of law to what was done by fair landlords at the present time. It would operate only against the harsh and mercenary landlords, and would not affect the fair landlord, who, at the present time, would not enforce the strict letter of the law. He therefore trusted that the Committee would accept this Amend ment:-In page 11, line 8, after "eject- I said Court that the non-payment of rent causing ment," to insertthe eviction has arisen from the rent being an exorbitant rent." "As in the case of a power of re-entry upon condition broken contained in a lease. Provided always, that the tenant may (except in case of breach of statutory conditions as to sub-division or sub-letting) before any such proceedings are taken by the landlord, or during the pendency of the same, apply to any Court in which such proceedings might be commenced, or in which the same may be pending, for relief, and the said Court may grant or refuse relief as the said Court, having regard to the proceedings and conduct of the parties, and to all the cir cumstances of the case, thinks fit, and in case of relief may grant it on such terms, if any, as to costs, expenses, damages, penalty, or other matters relative to the breach, as the said Court thinks fit," and leave out "founded on notice to quit." This Amendment would apply to few landlords. A certain proportion of the landlords had been charging excessive rents; and they had got a special advantage by their own misconduct of being able to turn out the tenant without giving compensation. The object of this Amendment was to make that class of landlords give compensation for disturbance. If a landlord were a good landlord charging only a moderate rent for his land, and wished to get possession of his holding for any reason and turn out his tenant by notice to quit, he would have to pay compensation; but, on the other hand, an exceedingly bad landlord, who charged Re-would be able to put out the tenant withvery much more than the land was worth, out compensation, because the tenant would not pay more than was due to the landlord. In fact, by this clause a premium was given to the bad landlords. Amendment should be accepted. For this reason, he thought that this But he thought the more convenient course would be to wait and see how the whole clause would turn out on the port, and then, so far as they thought it necessary, they would deal with it. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MR. BIGGAR, in the absence of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), moved the following Amendment :-In page 11, at end of Clause add "From and after the passing of this Act the fifty-second section of The Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland), 1860,' shall be read as if the words two years' rent' were substituted therein for the words 'a year's rent; the fifty-fourth section of the said Act shall be read as if the words 'two full years' rent,' were substituted therein for the words one full year's rent;' and the fifty-eighth section of the said Act shall be read as if the words 'two years' rent,' were substituted therein for the words one year's rent.' This section of this Act shall not apply in any cases of proceedings in ejectment for non-payment of rent commenced before the passing of this Act. "So much of the 9th section of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, as enacts that in case of a person claiming compensation on the determination by ejectment for non-payment of rent of a tenancy existing at the time of the passing of the said Act, and continuing to exist without alteration of rent up to the time of such determination, the Court in said Act mentioned may, if it think fit, treat such ejectment as a disturbance, if the holding, subject to such tenancy, be held at an annual rent not exceeding fifteen pounds; and if the said Court shall certify that the non-payment of rent causing the eviction has arisen from the rent being an exorbitant rent shall be and the same is hereby repealed. In lieu of the words so repealed, it is hereby enacted that in case of a person claim ing compensation under the said Act, as amended by this Act, on the determination by ejectment for non-payment of rent of any tenancy to which said Act applies, the Court in said Act mentioned may, if it think fit, treat such ejectment as a disturbance, if it shall appear to the Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." MR. GLADSTONE hoped that the hon. Member would not persevere with the Motion he had made. The experience gained on this point under the Land Act of 1870 was not of a very satisfactory nature. There was, undoubtedly, a reason for the existence of the clause at a time when the Land Act made no effectual or general provision for getting rid of distress. This was then a great mitigation, or might have been a great mitigation, of exorbitant rents. But as they were now legislating for a machinery for getting rid of exorbitant rent and preventing its recurrence, it appeared to them to be quite unnecessary to keep alive a separate provision which contemplated the continuance of that practice. The proof before the Court had been found to be a matter of difficulty sufficient to deter the tenant to raise the question. They had now made a provision for dealing with excessive rent, and they were disposed to trust to that, and not to keep alive the fact of previous practices. It must be borne in mind that in every case now the tenant would be advantaged. He thought the proposed addition to the clause unnecessary. MR. BIGGAR said, the difficulty with | his Amendment now before the Comregard to that was this-the Amend-mittee, which, as he gathered, was not ment applied to rents which were now included in the proposals stated to the due. It would be a very small com- House that morning namely, some pensation to the tenant to sell the inte- power to the Court to stay proceedings rest in the holding, when, in point of for ejectment on payment of arrears, fact, the price for the holding would not where the Court should consider that be more than the arrears which were the refusal on the part of the landlord due. This question of arrears was likely of the terms suggested by the Governto be discussed at very much greater ment was an unreasonable refusal. He length at a later stage; and, as a great should, therefore, ask leave of the Commany Amendments would be proposed mittee to withdraw his Amendment at on the clause of the Chief Secretary for this stage, in the view of considering the Ireland, he thought it better that this Government proposal when it was made Amendment should not be pressed to a later on. division. "Provided always that as to any arrears of rent of any agricultural holding not held under lease owing at the date of the passing of this Act, the Court shall have power to stay any proceedings for ejectment for non-payment of such arrears, save as follows: "(1.) In any such proceedings the Court shall judge and declare what would have been a fair rent for the holding during the three years next preceding the last gale day in 1880, having regard especially to the circumstances of holdings affected by any general failure of crops within such three years; 66 (2.) The Court shall ascertain how much has been paid within the said three years for, or on account of, rent of such holding, and deduct the amount thereof from the amount of the three years' fair rent declared as herein before enacted; and the balance, if any, remaining may, at the option of the Court, be declared payable in half-yearly instalments over such period as the Court shall determine, and shall, for the purposes of this section, constitute during such period an addition as rent to the rent otherwise payable for such holding under this Act," said, he had not had the advantage of hearing the very important and interesting statement which was made on the subject by the Government to-day; but he had heard of it. The Committee would excuse him if he thought his clause worthy of the consideration of the Government as a solution of this exceedingly delicate and difficult question. Of course, he was indisposed to put the Committee to the trouble of now discussing this question. He wished merely to ask the Government, between this time and the consideration of the arguments for their own proposal, to take into consideration one feature in Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MR. GIBSON, in moving the followAmendment :-In page 11, line 8— "3. Where a civil bill decree has been obtained for not less than one year's arrears of a statutory rent, it shall be competent to the plaintiff in such decree to apply for and obtain from the Court making the decree an order that, unless the amount thereof be paid within a time to be named in such order (not being greater than three months from the making of the decree), the interest of the defendant in the statutory tenancy should be sold by the sheriff in like manner as chattel interests in land are now sold under a writ of Fi Fa; "Provided-(a) That the interest so sold should be assigned to the purchaser by a deed to be executed by the Court which has made the order for sale; "(b) That the purchaser shall be entitled to an order from the said Court, in the nature of an injunction, from the sheriff to put the said purchaser into possession of the interest which shall appear by the said assignment to have been granted to the purchaser; "(c) Where a sale takes place under such an order, the landlord shall have no right of pre-emption," said, the Amendment was an attempt to simplify the procedure; and it was rather more to the interest of the tenant than to the landlord. At present, under a civil bill decree, a sale could not take place without one or two proceedings-an application to a Superior Court, and then a variety of other proceedings of rather an expensive character. This was an Amendment which sought to shorten that, and to provide machinery to control the powers of the Court. It enabled the plaintiff to make an application to the Court which must be made within three months, and then it safeguarded the whole thing by three Provisoes-namely, that the interest so sold should be assigned to the purchaser by a deed to be executed by the Court which had made the order for sale; that Question proposed, "That those words the purchaser should be entitled to an be there inserted." order to put him in possession of the interest, and that the landlord should have no right of pre-emption. Amendment would be largely in favour of the tenant. The Amendment spoke for itself. The Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law) said, that what was proposed was, in effect, a process by which, passing over ejectment for nonpayment of rent altogether, the landlord might be facilitated in selling the tenant's interest by the process of a civil bill decree. No matter what the amount was, he might call upon the Court to make an order. He did not think such a provision was desirable, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. MR. O'SULLIVAN said, it was proposed to give to the sheriffs a new power which they never had before, to put the purchaser at once in possession, even though the title might be a bad one. Surely that was a power which the law had never before contemplated. It would place too much power in the hands of the sheriff, and he trusted that the Government would never consent to it. MR. GIVAN wished to point out to the noble Lord that this Amendment was altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as when an administrator was appointed under the Act by the Court for the purpose of a sale, the money was invariably brought into Court and distributed under the direction of the Court, and it did not go into the hands of the administrator at all. IRELAND (Mr. LAW) explained that under the Land Act no security was required, because, as had been pointed out, the administrator did not carry out THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR the sale. MR. GIBSON was quite aware that that was so under the Act of 1870; but it had invariably been considered a great mistake, and it was right, in his opinion, As the clause stood at present, power that these words should be here inserted. was given to the Court to appoint an administrator, without there being a single word to indicate that the administrator was to give any security. FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IRELAND (Mr. Law) was willing to make some alteration if it were thought necessary; but he wished to point out that the Amendment as proposed spoke MR. GIBSON said, the Amendment of the sufficiency of the security. It gave no power whatever to the sheriff, would be better, he thought, to leave it for there must be a judicial act. How-to be provided for under the insertion of ever, after the statement of his right hon. words "such as they may think fit.” and learned Friend, he did not propose carry the matter any further at that stage of the Bill. to Question put, and negatived. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL moved, in page 11, line 14, after the word "fit," to insert these words "And who shall give such security for the due performance of the duties by this Act imposed upon him as the Court shall consider sufficient." He thought it was necessary to provide that where the Court appointed an administrator, that administrator should give security, as he would be a person intrusted with the collection of monies, and he might have those monies in his possession for some time. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL was quite willing to withdraw the Amendment, if the Attorney General for Ireland would propose another instead, carrying out the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own views on the subject. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW) moved, in page 11, line 14, after the word “ may," to insert the words "or such terms and conditions (if any) as they may think fit." Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." MR. P. MARTIN said, he really must object to the insertion of these words. He was most unwilling to enter any objection to what were merely and simply verbal Amendments; but if they went on amending the Bill in this fashion, and |