was far more important, and he suggested that his noble friend should withdraw the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE DUKE OF ABERCORN said the Amendment which he now moved was the same as that which he moved on the Committee stage. He did not press it then, because the Government expressed an opinion that it was undesirable. Since then he had consulted with his friends and those for whom he acted, in whose opinion this Amendment if adopted would be of great advantage, because it would promote sales, which was one of the main objects of the Bill. He trusted that the Government having now considered the Amendment would think it desirable to accept it.

deposit the Commissioners might be induced to sanction an advance for which the holding itself did not offer adequate security. We cannot therefore say that we think such an Amendment would be desirable. On the contrary, we think it would interfere with the principle on which this Bill rests, but we are ready to allow it to go to the House of Commons, as it is insisted upon, with the almost confident belief that such a departure from the principle of the Bill will not be agreed to.

THE EARL OF BELMORE said he might perhaps say a word upon this Amendment, because he could give an illustration of it which would give a totally different impression to that which the noble Duke had given. He knew of two cases in which the holdings would never have been sold at all except under the discretion which the Land Commissioners had with regard to the guarantee deposit. In one case they said they did not think 20 per cent. guarantee was sufficient, but they said to the landlord if fifth to remain as a guarantee deposit, he would allow one-third instead of onethey would be glad to sanction the advance. In the other case, which occurred sioners said they would sanction the adin the county of Galway, the Commis

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The Government do not think it would be at all desirable to accept this Amendment, but as the landlords appear to attach a great deal of importance to it I do not say we shall go the length of negativing it. I may state again what seems to us to be the strong reason against the acceptance of this Amendment, and which we are strongly of opinion will probably prove fatal to it in the other House if it is passed. We believe that although the intention may be very different, the impression which may be conveyed would Commons they would consider those two

be that this Amendment was introduced for the purpose of enabling the landlord to get a larger price for his holding than that which the holding would secure, or for which the holdingwas good security. Our idea throughout the Bill has been that the Commissioners should satisfy themselves that on the advance to be made in respect of any holdings, the holdings themselves should be sufficient security. We think it better to adopt that plan. No exception can be taken to any advance if it is such an advance as the Commissioners may satisfy themselves. is right, but that impression would certainly not be produced by the adoption of this Amendment, if by the

powers of retaining a guarantee

vance to the tenants if the landlord would be retained as a guarantee deposit. He allow the whole of the purchase money to allowed it to remain, and if he had not his estate would not have been sold and he and his tenants would have been damnified. He hoped when the matter came to be considered in the House of

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE | ciple for which the noble Lord contended, I don't think this Amendment alters the but they did not consider that the words clause. they were asked to accept met the case, and they therefore proposed an alternative Amendment, which would read thus

and he now asked the indulgence of the
House while he attempted to do so. It
was very technical. The Lord Chan-
cellor speaking on Clause 6 had clearly
indicated what were the intentions of
the Government with regard to what
were called arrears, but which were really
uncollected rents, under the different
modes of purchase. The noble Lord
said in effect that they got a proper
price for their land, and in addition to
that there should be added to the pur-
chase money an amount equal to one
year's rent for the arrears of uncollected
rent, and that all other uncollected rent
they would have to forego. Translated
into plain English it meant that the land-
lord was to get the price of the estate
and the tenant was to be absolved from
the necessity of paying more than one
year's rent. He was not to pay it in
cash, the Land Commissioners were
going to lend him the amount to be
repaid over a long period. What they
feared was that, in making the calcu-
lation, this matter of arrears would not be
kept in mind, and to use a proverbial
expression, in getting one year's rents
they would be like the dog who was fed
on a bit of his own tail. They would
only get the value of the land, and the
remainder-man, the tenant for life, would
get a year's rent not paid over to the
landlord. There was a great deal of
difference on this subject. The noble
Lord, when he asked him to consider
the matter, advised him to speak to
somebody else who advised the Govern-
ment, and who gave the same opinion
which the noble Lord Chancellor had
given just now; but other
whose advice he had taken on the
matter took a different view altogether,
and their opinion was that this would
result in the landlords losing a sum of
money amounting, possibly, in the aggre-
gate, to about £70,000,000, and more
than half their rents would be involved
under a subsequent section of the Bill.
He wanted this matter to be perfectly
clear. They asked no favour of the
Government; they only asked that they
should get their arrears of rents as
promised.

was so mixed up with the purchase money that it might be in Court for a considerable period, subject to the payment of interest to the tenant for life, and, in that case, how were the jointures and charges on that particular part to be met? As Lord Clonbrock had said, there were three ways of selling land under this Bill. One was through Judge Ross's Court, of which he had had no experience for many years, and as to which he did not say anything. He had had experience of the other methods, but before he explained what happened with regard to a sale made direct to the tenant, perhaps he might be allowed to read a letter received by him a few days ago from a very experienced solicitor in the North of Ireland, who had conducted sales for him in Tyrone and other places—

"My Lord,

new

"I have just gone through the Irish Land Bill as amended in Committee, and I wish to direct your attention to the who sell direct to their tenants, with respect to unfair position in which landlords are placed arrears of rent. You will observe that by Section 7 of the Act, the Land Commission can buy up the arrears of rent, and by Subsection 5 they are entitled to have the arrears vested in them with the right of collecting the same, and by Section 18 the arrears of rent bought can be recoverable as instalments, but if the landlord sells direct to the tenants, he is is not allowed to recover any arrears at all. limited as to price by the first section, and he No doubt under Section -24, Sub-section 7, a sum not exceeding one year's rent may be paid to him out of the purchase money, but that simply means that he loses a year's rent on the arrears, because he is limited as regards the purchase-money by the first section; in fact, the arrears are paid out of his own pocket. persons

It must be remembered that the rent did not go entirely into the pocket of the landlord; that it was subject to charges and jointures, and it VOL. CXXVII. [FOURTH SERIES.]

This latter sub-section should be

modified by enabling the landlord to recover arrears of rent notwithstanding the agreement to purchase, to an amount not exceeding one year's rent."

Having read the letter, which he thought put the matter very clearly, he would explain what happened when a sale direct to the tenant was made. First of all the landlord agreed with his tenant as to the price the tenant was going to give; the agreement was then prepared on a Land Commission form which had to be filled up and sent for approval, but before it was signed and sent up, there must be stated in it that all unpaid rents, including the broken gale, was paid by the tenant. terest on the purchase money ran from X

The in

the date of the agreement, and on that the landlord would lose the interest on the amount he would have received from the tenant by way of rent. If a landlord sold to the Land Commissioners under this Bill what would immediately happen would be that he would go to the Land Commissioners, who would give him a form, and to that a schedule of the rents must be attached, and the landlord would ask them what they would give him for it after they had looked into the matter and seen what the property was worth. He was afraid that the looking into the matter would take a considerable me, and during that time the landlords were afraid the Land Commissioners might say: "You must not collect any more rents, because we are looking at this on the basis that no more rent will be paid." Rent would be then difficult to collect. Honest tenants would come and pay, but "processing tenants took a long time, and if a landlord wished to evict a tenant he could not issue process against the tenant unless he was owing a year's rent. The landlords were therefore afraid they would get into a hideous mess in about a year from the passing of this Act, if this clause was not made perfectly plain. That was the reason he now moved this

Amendment, which only asked that the landlords should get their own.

Amendment to Clause 18, and Clause 18 said—

"The rents and profits of any land agreed to be purchased by the Land Commission, together with any interest under Section 35 of the Act of 1896, and, subject to the provisions of this section, any arrears of rent due at the date of the purchase agreement, and not remitted by the Commission, shall from the date of the the Commission in like manner as if they were agreement be payable to and recoverable by instalments of purchase annuities charged upon holdings."

That was equally clear. It was clear from that that when the Land Commission became the purchasers of land they were entitled to rents, profits and arrears. The Amendment proposed said: "No, you may be owners of rents and profits but not of arrears. The value of those arrears is to be ascertained by the Judicial Commissioner, who is already over-worked, and when it is ascertained it shall be paid by the Land Commission to the landlord over and above the price of the land." He thought that was unreasonable. Under this Bill the landlord was given a right under the clause to get arrears up to twelve months, but this Amendment proposed that he should have the value of the whole of the arrears measured and assessed.

THE EARL OF BELMORE said that

they neither expected nor asked for what the noble and learned Lord appeared to think they did. All they asked was that the uncollected rents, which in this Bill were called arrears, but which were really uncollected rents, should not be lost sight of.

*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND said if that was the case the drafting of this Amendment was most infelicitous, because under the clause the arrears were to become the property of the Land Commissioner. The Amendment was applied to that, and the Amendment said "the value of such arrears." It was all referential. That was a clear and intelligible proposition, which could not be accepted. His noble friend, who was so learned on this subject, had not discussed the Amendment, but something in his own mind, which was an entirely different matter. He did not know whether he would be in order

The Earl of Belmore.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, you landlord received, to begin with, the pur