honour, and had received his statement | whether that is agreeable to the wish of with the same. MR. HEALY inquired, whether it was not the fact that Lord Kenmare obtained his writs out of the Superior Courts in Dublin for the purpose of keeping up costs on the tenants? MR. GLADSTONE: What I said was that Lord Kenmare had obtained verdicts from Dublin juries in actions brought in the Courts of that City. PARLIAMENT-PUBLIC BUSINESS- MR. GORST asked the Prime Minis ter, Whether he would to-morrow make some statement in reference to the Transvaal, having formally stated that as soon as the guns taken at Potchefstroom were restored facilities would be given for the bringing on of the debate in reference to the Transvaal? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I never made any statement of the kind. What I said was that until the communica tions as to what had taken place were concluded no useful discussion could take the House generally. CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) THE UNITED STATES. VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true that a cargo of nearly three hundred oxen from Boston have been landed at Glasgow affected with footand-mouth disease; and, whether effectual steps have been taken to prevent the spread of the disease so imported? MR. MUNDELLA, in reply, said, he that yesterday he had received informaregretted to inform the noble Viscount tion that a cargo of cattle corresponding very much to the description given in the noble Viscount's Question had been landed in Glasgow in a very diseased state, and that the Department had issued instructions for the isolation and slaughter of the cattle, and for the disinfection of all the person who had had any access to them. It was hoped that by those measures they would succeed in preventing the spread of any infection. LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)-THE LAW OF ENTAIL. may hope that the Government will introduce a Bill dealing with the Laws of Entail and Settlement in Scotland? place. Perhaps, however, it may be desirable that I should say a word as to the course of Public Business. We have got, as the House is aware, into a situation of competition between two great MR. DONALD CURRIE: I beg to questions-the Irish Land Bill, which is ask the Lord Advocate a Question of before us especially on this occasion, and which I have given him private Notice Supply, which has fallen into a back--namely, Whether, at an early day, we ward state, and as to which justifiable anxiety prevails. I was extremely anxious that the debate on the second reading of the Land Bill should take place immediately after the Easter Recess. I do not know that we gained a great deal by commencing it on that day. I am given to understand that it would be a considerable convenience to Irish Members that Supply should be taken at the two Sittings next week, instead of the Land Bill; and, considering that we can hardly expect to dispose of the Committee on the Land Bill before the House would insist on our taking Supply, I think we should act wisely if we took Supply on Thursday and Friday next week, and then gave our constant attention to the Land Bill. Unless I have reason to suppose that I am mistaken in thinking that it meets with general acceptance, we shall consider that that is, the arrangement. To-morrow, at 2 clock, we shall be able to see positively THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN): Sir, I can inform my hon. Friend that the question has not been overlooked by the Government. Within the last few days, I have been informed that there is a general wish on both sides of the House, amongst the Representatives of the Scotch constituencies, that some attempt should be made to deal with certain parts of this question, and in the hope that it may meet with favourable consideration' I propose to bring in a Bill for that purpose. PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO. MR. T. P. O'CONNOR asked the Prime Minister, Whether the Governmont will be able to keep their promise, that there shall be an Evening Sitting to-morrow for resuming the discussion | dum was now nearly completed, as also on the hon. Member for Longford's was the draft Warrant; but they had (Mr. Justin M Carthy's) Motion as to to receive the approval of the Treasury. the conduct of the Irish Executive in He hoped in the last week of the month this matter; and, whether they will also to be able to get a day for the discushave the advantage of the presence of sion of the whole matter, after he had the Chief Secretary for Ireland during laid the Papers on the Table. the debate? An hon. MEMBER asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is the intention of the Government to make the new scheme come into force on the 1st of July? MR. CHILDERS, in reply, said, that it was, and that he had said so several times. POLICE LAWS (IRELAND)—THE DUBLIN DISTRICT. MR. GILL asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If his attention has been called to the following_extract from the Recollections of Mr. F. Thorp Porter, who had twenty years' experience as a Dublin police magistrate : of the Irish Metropolitan district are, to the "I may mention here that the Police Laws highest degree, complex, voluminous, involved, and puzzling. In the English Metropolitan district two statutes regulate, one the Police Force and the other the Police Courts. In Dublin we have a statute passed in 1808, another in MR. O'SULLIVAN asked Mr. Attor-1824, a third in 1836, a fourth in 1837, a fifth ney General for Ireland, Whether it is true that a proclamation has been issued this day, declaring a part of this county under martial law so far as to prevent the people from assembling in the district; and, if so, whether he will state why martial law has been proclaimed without the authority of the House? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW), in reply, said, he had received no information on the subject. PARLIAMENT PUBLIC BUSINESS- COLONEL STANLEY asked the Secretary of State for War, On what day, or about what day, he proposes to take the discussion on this scheme? MR. CHILDERS, in reply, said, he had stated the other night that taking Vote 10 on that occasion would not interfere with the promise he had given to fix the earliest day possible after the details of the plan of re-organization, which would be contained in the second Memorandum, had been laid on the Table of the House. That second MemoranMr. T. P. O'Connor in 1838, a sixth in 1839, a seventh in 1842, and an Act in relation to Public Carriages, which They contain three hundred and sixty-six secmay be also termed a Police statute, in 1848. tions, and may be designated as disgraceful to the several Executive Governments which have left them unconsolidated and uncodified; '• and, if he will endeavour to bring in a Bill at the earliest possible oppor tunity, to consolidate and simplify those statutes? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law): Sir, I have not had an opportunity of reading Mr. Porter's book, which, however, I am told is interesting and amusing. I am not in administering the police laws in the aware that any difficulty is experienced Dublin Metropolis, and, therefore, do not at present propose to lay before Parliament any Bill on the subject. ELECTIONS (IRELAND) 1880-POLICE EXPENSES AT LONDONDERRY. MR. LEWIS asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland. Whether the charge for expenses of extra police drafted into the county of Londonderry for the county election of 1880 has not been demanded of the Corporation of the City of Derry; whether such an assessment of the expense connected with the county on the city (which is a distinct constituency of itself) is in accordance with the law; and, whether the charge of any portion of such expenses on the respective constituencies is directly authorised by law or rests merely on usage? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law): Sir, the expenses of extra police drafted into the county of Londonderry for the county election of 1880 have been duly charged on the county, and have not been demanded from the corporation of the city. The charge is made without any reference to constituencies, and is in accordance with law. ORDERS OF THE DAY. LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.—[BILL 135.] "tenancy" meant the interest on the holding of a tenant and his successors in title during the continuance of a tenancy; and a "tenant" meant a person occupying land under a contract of tenancy, and included the successors in title to a tenant. If they were to ask for the limit of the interest which the tenant was to possess within the contract, express or implied, which existed between the landlord and the tenant, Her Majesty's Ministers had been much misunderstood if they had been credited with the desire to let the interest of the tenant be only that which was contemplated by the contract between him and his landlord. If the only interest the tenant was to have was that which the law gave him— namely, the right of assigning the unexpired term of the tenancy, there could be no difficulty in adopting his right hon. Friend's (Sir R. Assheton Cross's) Amendment. But if, on the other hand, there was something more to be placed in the power of the tenant-something upon the mere fact of occupancy-one searched through the Bill in vain in order to ascertain the nature and extent of the new thing which the tenant was to sell. The Prime Minister, in discussing the Bill, used two remarkable phrases. He said the tenant's interest was an interest made up of what the law gave him; and he also used that extraordinary phrase, "or should give him." [Mr. GLADSTONE: "Gives," or "shall give." He accepted what the right hon. Gentleman said; but if what was meant was what the law gave the tenant by that Bill, what was the interest of the tenant? Was it to be measured by time or value? Were there any circumstances that went to show that the interest had been created by the tenant? In his concluding words, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was a right which meant nothing more than the occupancy of the tenant, together with such inciSIR HARDINGE GIFFARD thought dents as the Legislature might be pleased that, from some of the phrases used by to attach to it. They were enacting now the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Mi-that the tenant might sell that thing nister, this Amendment was absolutely whatever it was; and, apart from the necessary. The Bill, as it stood, pro-phrase to which he had referred, he vided that the tenant for the time being of every tenancy to which the Act applied must sell his tenancy for the best price that could be got for the same; and within that provision they were bound to include the Interpretation Clause, from which it appeared that COMMITTEE. [FIFTH NIGHT.] Bill considered in Committee. PART I. ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES. In page 1, line 8, after the word "sell," to insert the words "such interest as under any contract, express or implied, between himself and his landlord, or by any legal custom or usage he may then have in unexhausted improvements or in the unexpired term of."(Sir Richard Cross.) Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted.” VOL. CCLXI. [THIRD SERIES.] looked in vain through the Bill to find anything limiting the power to sell beyond phrases which meant nothing. It was said that the interest was to be also created by the contract. Be it so; but here must be something beyond the contract. He thought he had some right [Fifth Night.] 3 P to appeal to his hon. and learned Friend, and what were its limits. He did not the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. know what the Land Commission might W. M. Johnson), because he had ob- say should be given to the tenant, or served in his speech that when it was what the law said ought to attach to the sought to draw him into a definition of tenant. He was not arguing whether it what the interest was which the tenant was right or wrong to give him this inpossessed, he said that he declined to be terest; but it ought to be shown within inveigled into a verbal discussion as to the four corners of the Bill what the what the thing was. Now, he (Sir Har- circumstances were that were adverted dinge Giffard) did not think that that to. At present, upon the face of the was altogether a satisfactory reply, be- Bill that was altogether uncertain; and, cause the matter was not a mere question therefore, some Amendment of this kind of words, but what was the principle was necessary. This ambiguity affected underlying what the Government thought the whole Bill. It was shown in the 1st proper to introduce into the Bill. What clause, and the moment they came to was it that was to be sold? As lawyers Clause 7 they would be in exactly the they knew what the interest was. They same difficulty, because there they were knew it was the unexpired term of the to have regard to the interest of the tenant's lease whatever it might be; but tenant. What did that mean? Was it in this case there was no limit to the that he was to be a tenant from year to thing that was to be sold. If Her Ma- year, or that he was made a tenant for jesty's Government meant to limit the seven or 15 years? Where in the four tenant's interest to that which the law corners of the Bill was there any definigave him by the Bill, no alteration in tion to show the Committee that if they the law would be necessary. Then, what passed the 1st clause in the form in was it, and in what part of the Bill was which it stood it would not be saidhe to find the definition? It must be "You have now admitted whatever the remembered that this was an ambiguity tenancy may be, whatever the circumwhich had been left in the Bill-he did stances of it may be, you have enacted not say intentionally, but of which hon. by that 1st clause that any tenant, under Members opposite had availed them- any tenancy, may be able to sell that selves abundantly. In the course of thing, and yet you have not defined these discussions, a touching picture had what that thing is in the Bill?" On a been drawn of cases in which the tenant former occasion, in reference to the Bill had, by his own exertions, turned use- introduced by the late Mr. Butt, it was less bogs into arable land, and had ap- pointed out that what was disrespectfully plied his capital to arrangements which described as "legal jargon" ran throughhad given to the land its present value. out the measure, about the profits of the That was a very striking case; but this soil making up that which was the fee power to sell was universal and indis- simple of the land; and if by any circriminate, and there was no part of the cuituous language they gave to the Bill which described the cases in which tenant the right of perpetual succession, either of these indications existed. It what they did would have the effect of was given universally, whatever the con- making the landlord a mere rent-charger. tract, or however much it might actually He contended that they were doing prenegative the existence of any such right cisely the same thing now. They were of disposition. The Bill, and the parti- concealing, in a multitude of words, no cular clause they were passing, gave one of which was capable of being exthat right universally, whatever the ten-pounded, not what the legal interest was, ant's right might be, although the tenant might not have added one farthing to the value of that which he held. He was not at present arguing whether it was right or wrong that the tenant should have that interest. He assumed for the present that it was proper that he should have such an interest, and that he should, by statute, be permitted to deal with it in that way; but he thought it should be plainly set forth what it was, Sir Hardinge Giffard but some interest or another, which somebody hereafter was to acquire, and they were declaring that that was the interest which the tenant might dispose of and sell. He thought they had a right to know, before they went any further, whether it was intended by the Government to accept his right hon. Friend's Amendment, or some other Amendment, which should define and make clear that which was intended. would deprive the tenant of the opportunity of selling his own improvements, unless there was some contract between him and his landlord. He (Mr. Ritchie) was satisfied that that could not be the intention of his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross), because they were all agreed-even those who were most bitterly opposed to the Bill as it stoodthat the tenant ought to be able, at least, to sell his own improvements; and he would suggest to his right hon. Friend that it would be as well to leave MR. MORGAN LLOYD said, that what rights were given to the tenants of Ireland under the Bill was a matter which would have to be discussed upon the subsequent clauses of the Bill. The only question now was whether or not the tenant was to be allowed to sell or part with whatever interest he might have. The clause gave no interest whatever to the tenant which he had not got already. It simply gave him the right to sell his interest in his tenancy. If he was a tenant at will he would have no interest to sell, because the landlord might de-out the words from the word "under" termine his will at any moment; but if he was a tenant from year to year, he would have his unexpired term to sell increased in value by the right to compensation for disturbance, to which he was entitled under the Land Act of 1870. If he was a leaseholder, he would have still more to sell. Even as the law now stood, if a tenant from year to year, he would have a right to sell his title to the improvements he had effected. All that was proposed by this clause was that he should have a right to sell whatever interest he had. It was said that that meant something besides a legal interest. Now, he (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) contended that it meant nothing more than a legal interest-whatever interest the tenant had must be a legal interest. By the words of the clause the tenant's interest was a legal interest; and, therefore, what was proposed to be done now was simply to give the tenant a right to part with whatever he now had, or what might be given to him by the Bill. The discussion as to what interest the tenant had or might have was premature, and would come before the Committee much more conveniently on the subsequent clauses of the Bill. MR. RITCHIE said, they all agreed with what the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) had just said, that the tenant should have a right to sell his interest. But what the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) intended to do was to define exactly what the interest of the tenant was, so that there should not be any trouble in interpreting what the House intended to give. In one part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), in criticizing the words of the Amendment, he quite agreed. It seemed to him that the words as they stood to "improvements," in his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister seemed to find great difficulty in defining what it was the tenant was to have the right to sell. Over and over again the Government had been pressed to say what they meant by certain clauses of the Bill, and there had always been a delightful vagueness in their explanations. He did not know whether it was that the Government themselves did not understand what the result of many of the provisions of the Bill would be; but he (Mr. Ritchie) thought it was desirable that the question should be fought out now, rather than be fought out in a Court. It was essential that they should lay down for the guidance of the Court, in fixing a fair rent, what it was that the tenant's interest consisted of. He had no hesitation in saying that he had always been in favour of conferring upon the tenantry of Ireland a moderate amount of tenant right. He thought the evidence given before the Commissioners pointed clearly in that direction; but he by no means considered that the method provided in the Bill was the right and proper method. On the contrary, he was convinced that it would impose a considerable amount of hardship upon the landlords of Ireland, and that it was desirable and necessary to modify it. They must take care, in removing the injustice under which certain tenants of Ireland certainly suffered, that they did not inflict a much greater grievance upon the whole body of landlords. If they gave power to the tenant to sell the unrestricted tenant right, one of two things must occur. Either part of it must come out of the landlord's pocket in the shape of a reduction of rent, or they would be giving something to the present tenant [Fifth Night.] 3 P 2 |