MR. W. E. FORSTER observed, that the charge just made by the hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin), that his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government was capable of treating that or any other important subject with levity, was one which would be regarded with surprise by all who heard it. he had seen in the course of those | him that his right hon. Friend had over discussions, and it was the levity with and over again done so. He was willing which expressions of opinion on the part to leave the defence of his right hon. of the Prime Minister of England, not Friend to what he had said that day, on matters of fact or circumstance, but and to what the House, the Committee, expressions of opinion on the great and the country would think of what principles of morality and justice, were his right hon. Friend had advanced, brushed aside by the transparent special The hon. Gentleman had dwelt, as he pleading they had heard, and dismissed had dwelt before, on the fact that his apparently without a thought or feeling right hon. Friend had expected better of compunction, and in a manner which results from the Bill of 1870 than it had he could not but feel would be fatal to produced; and he congratulated the hon. the public life of England, when the Member on the industry with which he people of this country reflected on the had read the speeches of his right hon. character for consistency of their fore- Friend. But it was too late then to most public men. bring forward those speeches, as both on the second reading of the Bill and in Committee they had been repeatedly explained. They had now to consider a very important matter-namely, whether they would accept the clause; whether, in fact, they would accept the Bill, for without the clause the Bill would never have been brought in by the GoMR. CHAPLIN said, he was sure the vernment. He might, in passing, refer right hon. Gentleman did not wish to to the inconsistency of the hon. Gentlemisrepresent him. He had made no man in signing the Richmond Report. charge against the Prime Minister of If the hon. Gentleman thought he had having treated this question with levity. acted consistently, let him, by all means, What he said was that the right hon. remain of that opinion. He (Mr. Gentleman brushed aside, without, ap- Forster) would only refer him to the parently, the smallest thought or feeling, speech of the hon. Member who had all allusions to his statements in former given Notice of moving the rejection of years, with regard to which he (Mr. the clause (Mr. A. J. Balfour), because Chaplin) had charged him with incon- it conveyed to the Committee that the sistency. impression of the hon. Member's inconMR. W. E. FORSTER said, he dis-sistency was not an unnatural one. But tinctly heard the expression "levity of opinion of the Prime Minister." He was very much struck by it at the time. MR. CHAPLIN: I said nothing of the kind. I alluded to the levity with which the right hon. Gentleman treated allusions to his past statements. I used the word "levity" deliberately, and I adhere to it now. MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he was quite content to accept the hon. Member's explanation, although he thought it would not carry conviction to the country. He was not, however, going to take up the time of the Committee on that subject. He would not say that the hon. Member would not have used the same words if his right hon. Friend had been present; but when he charged Members of the Government with want of courage and manliness in not answering his charges, he had to remind they had got more or less into a second reading debate. He did not complain of that, because that clause, the 7th, was the most important clause of the Bill. Its principles had been challenged on the second reading, and fully discussed. Nobody supposed on either side of the House that the Government would, as a matter of choice, have created a tribunal for the fixing of rent; but the majority of the House had recorded their belief that, in the present circumstances of Ireland, they must create such a tribunal. And he asked hon. Members opposite, if they were in power and administering the affairs of Ireland, would they leave matters as they now were? Almost every person who had studied the question felt that, in the present exceptional circumstances of Ireland, they were bound to have an outside tribunal to fix the amount of fair rents. Several hon. Members had tried would, in the present strained state of relations between landlords and tenants in Ireland, have done any real good to either party. He could not complain that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had taken another opportunity of referring to the speeches of the Premier and explaining away his own Report. There were, however, no points in regard to the clause on which hon. Mem forming, and probably had formed, an opinion; and he, therefore, hoped the Committee would go to a division without further delay. to frighten the Committee by drawing fancy pictures of the view both landlords and tenants would take of the Court. But in a very short time after they had begun to have any experience of the working of the Act both landlords and tenants would get a pretty close idea of what the decision of the Court was likely to be in any particular event, and they would settle the rents for themselves, and so avoid the trouble and ex-bers had not had ample opportunity of pense of going to the Court. He could assure the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire that if he would make inquiries in any part of Ireland, alike of landlords and tenants, he would find that no such feeling existed with regard to the Court as that with which he credited them. So far from that being the case, they looked forward to the establishment of the Court as their hope and resource, in order to enable them to get out of their present difficulties. If the hon. Member for Hertford were to be successful in getting the clause struck out of the Bill, it would be a matter of great disappointment, he might even say of dismay, to the receivers of rent, as much as to the payers of rent. He did not mean to say that the working of the Court would not be attended with inconveniences and difficulties; but he maintained that these would not be so great as the inconveniences and difficulties which they would remove. He doubted whether they could continue to use the power of the law in the landlord's interest, in order to compel the fulfilment of a contract, when they knew that the tenants had not been by any means as free to contract as they ought to be, and as free as tenants were in other countries. The hon. Member objected to the proposal of the Government on the ground that it would give perpetual tenure to the tenant. The Government did not so regard it; and he could not see how it could be so regarded by anyone in view of the fact that it gave to the landlord power to resume possession of his estate at the end of 15 years. They did not for a moment deny-indeed, it was their pride and boast-that though the Bill did not enact perpetual tenure, it would give great stability and security of tenure, and unless it did so the Bill would not be worth the paper on which it was drafted. He did not think that any measure short of that which the Government had introduced Mr. W. E. Forster SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It may be perfectly true, Sir, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that there are no points which can very well be raised with regard to this Bill upon which hon. Members have not probably formed their opinions; but I will endeavour, in a few words, to show why I think, at the present moment, on the passing of the 7th clause, it is important that we should put on record the impression made upon us by the manner in which the clause has been handled since it went into Committee. It is not my intention to throw myself into the controversy which has been raised with regard to the consistency of the Prime Minister; but, at the same time, I would point out that I think it ought to be borne in mind, when references are made to the previous opinions of the Prime Minister, they are made in these circumstances. Ten or 11 years ago the right hon. Gentleman, after great care and study of the question, brought forward a scheme for dealing with the land system of Ire. land. In so doing, he discussed at great length, and with very great ability, several leading and fundamental questions connected with the tenure of land. He laid down certain principles, and argued them out with great ability, thought, and clearness. We are now brought face to face with a measure, also introduced by him, in which we find a considerable number of the principles adopted by him in former times set aside, and we complain that no sufficient reason has been given, either by the Prime Minister or any of his Colleagues, why those views are now set aside. Therefore, while I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) ought to be rebuked for the course he has taken, I think we should not be wise to of discernment the question of the fair spend much time upon this question. rent was to be intrusted. But, Sir, in What we have to consider is the 7th the course of the discussion an alteration clause, which has been truly said to be was made, not by the Government, but the most important part of the Bill, and on the suggestion of the hon. and concerning which I will say that, as learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. originally drawn, it was very different Charles Russell), who took an active in character from the clause as we are part in the discussion and with very now asked to pass it. It began, in the great ability. The hon. and learned first instance, by providing that the ten- Member for Dundalk introduced some ant should have the power of demand- words which I think may lead to some ing a fair rental to be fixed by the difficulties hereafter-I mean the words Court, and it went on to define the "having regard to the interests of the manner in which the Court were to ar- landlord and tenant respectively." These rive at what a fair rent would be. The sound very harmless words; but I think clause, as it originally stood, contained that, to a certain extent, they are words rather minute and complicated direc- which may be held to imply that very tions to the Court-namely, that, in direction to the Court which it was our settling what the fair rent would be, object to do away with. [Cheers from they were to take into account what was the Home Rule Members.] The cheers called the "tenant's interest," and the from that part of the House rather conmanner of calculating this was set out firm me in my opinion, and render it at full length in the clause. On looking all the more important that we should at that part of the clause I was of opi- bear in mind what the possible effect of nion that the manner in which it was the words of the hon. and learned Gen-` proposed to calculate the tenant's in- tleman was, and what effect they may terest was unfair, in that it would not have on our future proceedings. Our only have given to the tenant that which view has been that it is necessary, I believe he had no right to claim, but and I am far from saying that, in my also more than had been claimed for own view, it may not be necessary, to him, especially in recent years, by as make, as a temporary arrangement, great a friend of the tenant as the late under the peculiar circumstances of IreMr. Butt. It was my intention to chal- land, provisions for fixing the rent. If lenge the definition given as to the it is necessary, then I think it should manner in which the tenant's interest be made without letting in a principle was to be arrived at, and, if possible, to which is of such a character that I do make the definition correspond more not think the Committee ought to accept precisely with that which would meet, it. It is a principle which has been reas I believed, the fair justice of the cognized almost accidentally, and withcase. But before we reached the dis-out the knowledge even of the authors cussion of that part of the Bill, the Government changed their view and struck out those minute directions intended for the guidance of the Court, and which I intended to oppose, and in place of them proposed that it should be left to the Court, with due regard to the circumstances of the case, holding, and district, to fix what was to be the fair rent. If the matters had been so left, I think it might have been satisfactory, because we could then have concentrated our attention on the construction and constitution of the Court and the powers which ought to be given to it. And, as I have said, the clause in its amended form would have been one which we might have been content to allow to pass unchallenged, in order to concentrate our attention on the Court, to whose power When we say of the Act of 1870-certainly without MR. SHAW thought he might be allowed to refer to the debate in question, seeing that the Chairman had not interposed when it was referred to by a previous speaker. THE CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the reference, or I would have stopped it at once. THE CHAIRMAN: I have no knowledge whatever of what has taken place in "another place." for a statutory term of 15 years. The effect is to give a power of renewal, and a power of renewal which may, subject to a few exceptions, be exercised over and over again for all time, and which I think can hardly be distinguished from what may be called perpetuity of tenure. Exceptions they are, but they prove the rule and go beyond the necessity which MR. T. P. O'CONNOR asked if it we recognize in the case; and, under was not a fact that a noble Lord in these circumstances, it becomes our duty" another place" referred to a speech to express our opinion by dividing made in the House of Commons this against the clause. I think that is Session by the Prime Minister? necessary, for this reason-if we did not divide against the clause in its present shape, we should always be told in future discussions on other parts of the Bill-"Oh, but that was included in the 7th clause, which, after a great deal of discussion and a great deal of amendment, was accepted by the Committee without a division." Therefore, I am not prepared to accept it without a division. While I recognize in the Bill some things which are not bad, I recognize also in it some things which I think we are bound to protest against; and, therefore, it is my intention to advise my hon. Friends to join me in dividing against the clause. MR. SHAW said, the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment (Mr. Chaplin) had made a reference to the Bessborough Commission which he (Mr. Shaw) considered most unfair. Indeed, it was not the first time that unfair references had been made to that Commission, and he thought it would be much better if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would give Notice of a Motion in regard to that Commission. There might have been a dozen witnesses who gave their evidence very absurdly; but he was quite prepared to defend the recommendations of the Commission and the conclusions to which they arrived. The hon. Gentleman also referred to a debate which had taken place in "another place." Until that day he (Mr. Shaw) had not read the speech of the Duke of Argyll. He had been more pleasantly occupied in taking a few days' holiday; but he had not the slightest hesitation in saying that a more incorrect and a more unfair speech he had never read. [Cries of "Order!"] THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is at present referring to a debate in the other House, and he is not in Order in so doing. Sir Stafford Northcote MR. BIGGAR said, he wished to ask MR. BIGGAR said, he wished to ask a question on another point of Order. Of course, it was perfectly clear that any Member of that House would not be justified in referring to what had been said by a Peer in "another place;" but would he not be justified in referring to a published report of that Peer's speech which had appeared in the news. papers? MR. SHAW, continuing, said, he had been asked by a friend whether he did not intend to reply to that speech, and his answer was that he could not very well, in the present hot weather, answer it by a letter in The Times. It was only a Scotchman who was able to do that. However, he had expressed his willingness to answer the speech at any time in the place in which it was made. [Cries of "Oh!"] He did not mean what hon. Members seemed to think he meant. He hoped that Providence would preserve him from acquiring a right to speak in that House; and what he meant was, that he was ready at any time to appear at the Bar of the House of Lords and answer the speech, and he had no doubt that Baron Dowse would also be quite ready to appear there. [Cries of "Order!"] He really did not think he was out of Order; but he would address himself now to the clause under discussion. He regarded it as containing what he understood to be a real and perfect security for the present tenant, and for the present tenant alone. As such the Irish Members had always regarded it; not as giving security in perpetuity, but as giving security to the present tenants. | the Amendment which stood in the name If the right hon. Gentleman the Prime of his hon. Friend, in order to give the Minister were now to withdraw the right hon. and learned Gentleman the clause, he (Mr. Shaw) was sure the Attorney General for Ireland an opporIrish Members would entirely disso- tunity of deciding whether the substituciate themselves from the Bill, and cast tion of "inequitable" and "inequitupon the hon. and right hon. Gentle- ably" for the words "unreasonable men who threw out the clause the re- and "unreasonably" would make any sponsibility of passing the measure. He difference in the view of the right hon. considered it absolutely essential that on and learned Gentleman. As a non-legal every change of tenancy the tenant right Member, he (Mr. Biggar) could see no and the improvement rights of the tenant difference; but, on the other hand, there should be purchased, and he understood might be a difference in the legal mind. that to be the recommendation of the If there should prove to be a material hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. difference he would not press the MR. CHAPLIN said, he had not Amendment. He begged to move, in stated that he recommended that as the line 31, to leave out the words " unrearight plan to adopt; but he had men- sonable" and "unreasonably," and subtioned it to show that the recommenda-stitute for them the words "inequitable" tion of the Commission was not incon- and "inequitably." sistent with the possibility of doing it. MR. SHAW said, he could not understand why the hon. Member should propound a plan of this kind without being prepared to give the Court power to carry it out. He understood that the hon. Member propounded it as a great political scheme; but it was a plan that would work absolute and entire ruin to the landlords. MR. CHAPLIN: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why? Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 31, to leave out the word "unreasonable," in order to substitute the word "inequitable."-(Mr. Biggar.) unreasonable' stand part of the Clause." Question proposed, "That the word THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW) said, he must decline to accept the Amendment. If the landlord demanded too high a rent, it would come under the word "unrea THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Mem-sonable," as the Court would have to ber for Mid Lincolnshire desires to make an explanation he will have an opportunity of doing so after the speech of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) is concluded. MR. SHAW, continuing, said, it had been suggested that he should move an Amendment to the clause; but he believed that the clause as it stood was sufficient to protect all the interests concerned. It was absurd to suppose that any valuer in Ireland, being required to enter into the whole question of the interest of the tenant and of the landlord, would not take everything into consideration. Question put. The Committee divided:-Ayes 289; Noes 157 Majority 132.-(Div. List, No. 291.) Clause 8 (Equities to be administered by Court between landlord and tenant). MR. BIGGAR said, that as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the County of Roscommon (Dr. Commins) was not present, he would move formally decide whether the demand was unreasonable or not. The insertion of the word "inequitable" would not be any improvement. MR. BIGGAR said, that after that explanation he would withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MR. GIBSON moved, as an Amendment, in line 34, after "same," to insert "or postpone the same." It would be grossly unjust to the landlord who had originally placed a farm in the hands of a tenant in a thoroughly good condition to give power to the Court to accede to the tenant's application, and declare the landlord's conduct unreasonable so long as the farm continued in a bad condition. He wished to have these words inserted in the clause in order to indicate to the Court that it should have power to say to the tenant-"I will not give any decision yet as to rent, owing to the scandalous condition into which you have allowed the holding to run; but if you will come back to me |