in two or three years' time, I will then consider your application, and, in the meantime, you must put the farm into good heart and condition." The Court in such a case would be able to say"I do not dismiss your application absolutely; but I postpone the consideration of it for two, two and a-half, or three years, and at the end of that period you may come back, and I will then see what the condition of the farm is." The tenant might receive the farm in a perfectly good condition, and might by the worst conceivable husbandry reduce it to the worst possible condition, in which it might be worth only 28. 6d. an acre. The words he proposed to insert in the clause were 66 or postpone the same," subject to certain terms; and the terms he assumed would be that the tenant should put the holding into something like a reasonable tenantable condition. The Court would always have an opportunity of seeing whether the tenant had bond fide carried out the terms and conditions of the clause. Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 34, after "same," insert "or postpone the same."-(Mr. Gibson.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law) said, he did not like to refuse anything proposed to him by his right hon. and learned Friend; but he did not see that it was desirable to accept the proposal now made, which was altogether unnecessary. When a man entered upon a farm, he ought to be wise enough to keep his farm in the highest possible state of cultivation, so that he might realize the highest possible sum from it. If a tenant who had allowed his farm to run out of condition applied to the Court, the Court would at once be able, under that 8th clause, to deal with it at its discretion. It might consider whether the tenant had done anything that was unreasonable, and might thereupon refuse the application. But there was nothing to prevent the Court from entertaining the application again at the end of two or three years. The clause, as it stood, would enable the Court either to grant the application, or to refuse it until the tenant had restored the holding to a satisfactory condition. When the farm had beer placed in a tenantable condition, there was nothing Mr. Gibson to prevent the tenant from making an application again; and if the application was a proper one, it would; no doubt, be heard. MR. BIGGAR failed to see that any advantage would be derived from the adoption of the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). The Court would have power to take into consideration the rent that was substantially paid, and in a case where the holding had been very much impoverished and allowed to run into a very bad condition the interest of the tenant would be exceedingly small. The case put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, where a tenant had allowed a farm worth 30s. an acre to become so impoverished that it was only worth 2s. 6d. an acre, was a very extreme one; and the Court had ample power, as the clause now stood, to deal with such a case. Question put, and negatived. MR. GIVAN said, he proposed to move the omission of the last paragraph of the clause, which provided that "The Court in considering whether the land lord or tenant has unreasonably refused any proposal made by the other, may take into account any proposal that may have been made of the grant by the landlord to the tenant of such a lease as is hereafter in this Act referred to indic as a judicial lease; but the conduct of the tenant in refusing the grant of any such lease shall not be deemed unreasonable unless the Court is satisfied that the interest of the tenant, having regard to the value of his tenancy, would have been sufficiently secured by such lease." The object of that part of the clause was to protect the tenant from any undue force the landlord might bring to bear upon the tenant to compel him to accept a judicial lease, and then from setting up such lease in opposition to the tenant's claim. The clause, in the first paragraph, provided that "Where the Court, on the hearing of an application of either landlord or tenant respecting any matter under this Act, is of opinion that the conduct of either landlord or tenant has been unreasonable, or that the one has unreasonably refused any proposal made by the other," the Court might do certain things specified in the second paragraph of the clause, and which were to be a direction to the Court in regard to the matters that were reasonably left to its discretion. The words, as they stood in the first part of the clause, were, he thought, quite sufficient, and it was not expedient | In fact, the lease was not forced by the to drag into the clause the offer of a landlord on the tenant; but it was a judicial lease to the tenant for the pur- lease accepted by the Court on bepose of enabling the landlord to go before half of the tenant, and approved by the Court with what he might consider the Court on behalf of the tenant. It to be a reasonable offer in satisfaction of therefore stood upon entirely 'different the claims of the tenant. At the present lines from the clause of the Act of 1870, moment, he proposed to move the omis- which provided that a 31 years' lease sion of the third paragraph of the clause. should take the tenant out of the Act. This clause did not take the tenant out Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 38, to leave out from the word "justice" to end of Clause.-(Mr. Givan.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to left out stand part of the Clause." LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL hoped that the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood. The provision which the hon. Member proposed to strike out was only an invitation to the landlord and tenant to settle their differences out of Court. The paragraph itself simply enabled the landlord to draw the attention of the Court formally to the lease which the Government proposed to call a judicial lease; otherwise the Court might not have regard to the perfectly equitable and fair terms of the lease. It was open to the tenant to refuse it if he thought it would bind him too much; but, on the other hand, if he did accept it, the landlord ought to be able to take advantage of it. of the provisions of the Bill; but it left it directed that a lease, when accepted should be binding upon the landlord. by the tenant and approved by the Court, If the Court said that the refusal of the tenant was not unreasonable, that would be a sufficient protection for the tenant. The MR. LITTON said, he was of opinion. that it would be undesirable to allow the Court to say that the offer of a judicial lease was to be a receipt in full to the tenant for all claims under the Act. He did not suppose that a single tenant out of a lunatic asylum would dream of accepting a lease of 31 years in lieu of the benefits conferred by the Act. Now, what were the benefits of the Act? right of getting a perpetual renewal of a term of 15 years, so long as the tenant thought proper to go to the Court and prove that he had observed the conditions of a statutory tenancy. What, then, could be the object of placing the Court-recollecting that the Court would probably be the County Court Judges in MR. CHARLES RUSSELL said, he Ireland, who, whatever their abilities did not attach very much importance were, had their feelings-would it be either one way or the other to the wise or just to place upon them the inAmendment. As to the paragraph of vidious duty of determining that a lease the clause against which the Amendment of 31 years offered to the tenant was a was directed, he did not think it im-lease that ought to be accepted by the proved the first part of the section, which might be described as the general equity section. The first part of it was sufficiently comprehensive in its general terms to give the Court power to deal with all applications by the landlord or tenant; and he did not think it good drafting, after having laid down general principles, to proceed to point out particular cases. MR. SYNAN thought the tenant was protected by the words at the end of the sub-section "But the conduct of the tenant in refusing the grant of any such lease shall not be deemed unreasonable unless the Court is satisfied that the interest of the tenant, having regard to the value of his tenancy, would have been sufficiently secured by such lease." tenant? It was quite true that the words were "thirty-one years or upwards;" and it might be contended that the County Court Judge, before he refused the application, might say that unless it was a 41, or a 51, or a 61 years' lease, he would not consider it reasonable. Under all the circumstances, he apprehended that it would be a great improvement to the Bill if these words were struck out, as was proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Monaghan (Mr. Givan). They were quite unnecessary for the general purposes of equity; and, under the first part of the clause, the matter might very well be left to the discretion of the Court. MR. LALOR wished to remind the Committee and the Government that "Or that the one has unreasonably refused many of the evils which afflicted Ireland first part of the clause, undoubtedly at the present moment had arisen out come within the jurisdiction of the of the power given by the Land Act of Court. The closing words of the first 1870 to force judicial leases upon the paragraph in line 31 are— tenants. Much bitterness of feeling and heartburning had originated from that practice. He said that the leases had been forced upon tenants. They had never been more forced upon them than It might be said that the tenants were open to refuse them; but now. any proposal made by the other the Court may do as follows." Then the clause goes on to say what the Court may do, and the alternative is that if they had refused them they knew "It may refuse to accede to the application, what the inevitable consequence would or that it may accede to the application subbe. He was satisfied that no man inject to conditions." Ireland would accept one of these judicial leases in lieu of his rights under the present Bill. MR. GLADSTONE: Two distinct questions have been raised in the course of the observations of hon. Members who have taken part in the discussion. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) did, however, place the matter suggested by the Amendment on its proper ground. The suggestion is this-the two first paragraphs of the clause are quite ample to cover any judgment the Court may form as to the offer of a judicial lease. Now, I think it is not expedient to argue, on the present occasion, the question whether these leases are desirable, or, if they are desirable, what should be their precise terms. The Committee will have to consider that question under the 9th clause, and they will have not only to consider the whole of the terms of the leases, but to give their judgment upon the 9th clause itself. Therefore, I would respectfully suggest that we would do well to postpone that subject entirely, and confine ourselves now to the narrow question whether it is expedient for the purposes of the Bill that after investing the Court with general power to consider and determine and draw its own conclusions upon every question of a reasonable offer between the parties we should proceed to point out one particular kind of reasonable or unreasonable contracts. I am bound to say that I think we should do much more wisely to trust to the general powers contained in the first part of the clause. No doubt, under the general powers conferred by the clause, it will be in the competency of the Court to deal with the question of unreasonable contracts; and the refusal to entertain the offer of a lease would, under the Mr. Lalor Under these circumstances, I think it will probably be better to drop the third paragraph, especially as the matter may be considered better on the 9th clause, which contemplates the duration and consequences of judicial leases upon the settlement of the whole condition of the tenancy, whereas this clause does not contemplate such matters, but only the settlement of the amount of rent. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL thought the Government had acted very unwisely in giving up this section. Judicial leases were the particular invention of the Prime Minister himself. He recollected quite well the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect-"We recognize that there are good landlords in Ireland, and we wish to make a distinction between them and bad landlords, and to keep them, if possible, out of Court by permitting them to make arrangements with their tenants. We wish to give them an opportunity of continuing to their tenants, for some considerable time, the benefits the tenants now enjoy under them; and, therefore, the tenants who enjoy judicial leases will not come under the clause." The offer of a judicial lease was to be considered by the Court as a reasonable offer, not to be refused by the tenant; but the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to leave the Court to say that the tenant might be free to refuse it or not. As the clause originally stood the tenant could not refuse a judicial lease, as long as it preserved the fair interests of the tenant. He thought the concession of the Government was really a very important one; and he deprecated the readiness which they displayed in abandoning their proposals in order to meet the views of the extreme Party. LORD JOHN MANNERS regretted | and, in reality, they did not go back far that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime enough into the history of the conduct Minister had not, on other occasions, of the parties, and especially into the displayed the same readiness to make important question whether the tenant concessions which he had manifested had or had not deteriorated the condinow. He (Lord John Manners) also tion of the soil. In passing, he wished entertained an objection to the mode in to put a question to the right hon. which it was proposed to deal with ju- and learned Gentleman upon a point dicial leases; and if the 3rd section of which had agitated his mind very conthe present clause had been allowed to siderably, in regard to the provisions remain in it, it would have been his of the 4th clause. Long as it was since duty to move the insertion of the larger the Committee disposed of that clause, and more liberal words which appeared some of them would remember that, in in the 18th section of the Act of 1870. the 4th section, a number of conditions The Act of 1870 was not to be displaced were defined which were called "statufrom the Statute Book; and as they had tory conditions." At first it was thought heard nothing in condemnation of the that a breach of these conditions would operation of the 18th section, he thought, lead to the loss of the holding and to the if the words of the present clause were to re-entry of the landlord. It was now be changed at all, it was expedient that found that, nevertheless, the tenant was the Amendment should be in the direc- to be compensated by damages. He tion of adopting the phraseology of the wished to know whether, in the event of 18th section of the Act of 1870. There- the tenant breaking any of the statutory fore, if the section had been retained he conditions, such, for instance, as breakshould certainly have felt it necessary ing up the farm and sub-dividing it, to move the Amendment which stood in that was a question which was to come his name. up for the consideration of the Court, because the words of the clause, as they stood, were-" Or that the one has unreasonably refused any proposal made by the other, the Court may do -certain things. All the statutable conditions made by the 4th clause were interfered with by the present clause; and he was, therefore, anxious to move the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name. MR. WARTON wished to put a question to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman, if he understood him rightly, seemed to be abandoning the third paragraph of the 8th clause of the Bill on the ground that judicial leases were not worth having. He wished, therefore, to know whether it was also the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to abandon the 9th section? Question put, and negatived. MR. WARTON said, that nothing in the conduct of the Bill had struck him with more surprise than the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) upon the meaning of the word "unreasonable." He did not dispute that there might have been cases since the passing of the Act of 1870 which the Court might fairly hold to be unreasonable; but if they were to make the Bill understood and effective they ought not to leave out of consideration the important question of the deterioration of the holding. As the clause was at present drawn, the only questions the Court could really consider were questions relating to that which happened at the time the landlord and tenant came into Court, or nearly about that time; Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 4, at the end of the Clause to the question whether the conduct of the tenant add Provided always, That in considering has or has not been unreasonable, the Court may take into consideration whether the tenant of the holding in which such tenancy subsists, or his predecessors in title, has or have caused deteriorated contrary to the express or implied or suffered such holding to become and be then conditions constituting the contract of tenancy."—(Mr. Warton.) Question proposed, "That those words be there added." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW) hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept the same answer as that which he had given to his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Gibson). The word " unreasonable," which was already in the Bill, would include waste, and all the deterioration which the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to guard against was already provided for by the Bill. MR. WARTON intimated that, after the clear statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he was satisfied, and would withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause, as amended, agreed to; and ordered to stand part of the Bill. PART III. EXCLUSION OF ACT BY AGREEMENT. Judicial Leases. Clause 9 (Lease approved by Court during its continuance to exclude provisions of the Act). MR. LITTON moved, as an Amendment, to leave out "thirty," and insert "sixty." He thought that 30 years were too short a term, and that 60 or 61 years would be much better. He was, however, unwilling to press the Amendment, unless he had reason to believe that it would be favourably received by the Committee. He should, therefore, ask the Chairman to put the Amendment. Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 12, to leave out " thirty and insert sixty."-(Mr. Litton.) Question proposed, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the Clause." MR. GLADSTONE: As the hour for reporting Progress has nearly arrived, it is hardly worth while to call upon the Committee to discuss the Amendment, which is of some importance, now. I will, therefore, move that the Chairman report Progress. Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"-(Mr. Gladstone,) -put, and agreed to. LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL. Amendment again proposed, in page 9, line 12, to leave out the word "thirty," and insert "sixty."--(Mr. Litton.) Question proposed, "That the word thirty' stand part of the Clause." MR. LITTON explained, that he proposed the Amendment with a view to ascertaining the views of the Government upon the subject. It appeared to him that it would be a very great advantage, where an equivalent was to be offered to the tenants, that a real equivalent should be offered, and not simply totally inadequate. He did not wish to 30 years, which appeared to him to be press the Amendment, if the Government did not see their way to accept it; because he thought the necessity was somewhat removed by reason of the Amendment made on the latter portion of the prior clause. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was able to state to the Committee that he preferred to keep the term "thirty years" in the clause, he (Mr. Litton) would withdraw the Amendment. MR. BIGGAR said, he did not know what the intention of the Government was as to this particular Amendment. Under the clause, as it at present stood with 31 years, the tenant, instead of being entitled to a renewal from time to time at the end of 15 years, would, at tenant. That was an objectionable prothe end of 31 years, become a future vision, because a landlord might bring pressure to bear on the tenant, and threaten that if he did not agree to his terms he would take him into the Court and put him to expensive litigation. Although provisions of leases heretofore had not been always insisted upon by the landlords, it had been customary to put in leases conditions which would be thoroughly unreasonable if acted upon, and would deprive the tenant of his Committee report Progress; to sit rights. Nothing could be more natural again this day. And it being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock the House suspended its Sitting. House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock. The Attorney General for Ireland than that a landlord should say that the provision was the same as leases which had been signed from time to time; and thus the tenant of a large property might be induced to accept leases entirely taking away his rights. MR. W. E. FORSTER said, the Committee must remember that the position |