The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-08-13 00:00:00

St VI LTD:- ATP PI:

this included any portion of the territory that had been held
t,o bblong to Persia.
The consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Land
Law (Ireland) Bill, for which a House unusually large for the
time of the year had been brought together, occupied the
whole evening The first of consequence which was reached
was the Duke of Argyll's, embodying what has been known
as Mr. Heneage's Amendment, giving the landlord a veto on
the right of free sale in regard to all holdings where he has
made the permanent improvements.
Mr. Gladstone intimated that he would agree to it as a
concession to the Lords and not because he thought it an
improvement, but it must be on the condition that the im-
provements were substantially maintained and had not been
acquired by the tenant.
Mr. Parnell, who strongly disapproved the decision of the
Government, proposed to add a further proviso that the
landlord shall not have been repaid the value of the im-
provements hi increased rent, but this being objected to, he
contented himself with taking a division on the main ques-
tion.

In the end, the House agreed fo the Lords' amendment by
258 to 100.

The next amendment, also inserted at the instance of the
Duke of Argyll, provided that the landlord shall be allowed
to recoup himself out of the proceeds of the tenant's sale any
sum which he may have expended on the purchase of the
tenant-right.
This, Mr. Gladstone said, was badly drawn even for its
object, but, assuming that to be desirable, it laid the burden
of recouping the landlord on the wrong person—the tenant,
who might not necessarily have obtained any benefit from
the holding. He therefore prGposed to disagree with the
Lords.

Mr. Gibson, Captain Aylmer, Mr. Newdegate, and Lord G.
Hamilton maintained that without this amendment a gross
act of injustice would be committed; while the Attorney-
General for Ireland and the Solicitor-General denied this,
and on a division the House decided to disagree with the
Lords by 272 to 145.
The next amendment, prescribing certain legal processes
to be followed in the sale of a holding, Mr. Gladstone pro-
posed to agree with; but Mr. Parnell opposed it as unduly
favourable to the landlord, and took a division, with the
result that it was accepted by 347 to 87.
The next amendment, preventing yearly tenants from sub-
dividing or subletting, was agreed to, with amendments, as
was also a string of amendments in the clause relating to
the devolution of tenancies.

An amendment inserted by the Lords to check over-
crowding and the multiplication of dwellings on a holding
was discussed for some time. The Government proposed to
agree to it with amendments, and while Mr. Parnell's party
objected to the clause altogether, the Conservative Opposition
objected to the Ministerial amendment. This latter, whieh
consisted in the omission of words forbidding the conversion
of outhouses, 8.7,c., into dwelling houses, was carried by,219
to 93, after which the Lords' amendment was carried bf 265
to 67.

The Lords' amendments with regard to game, minerals,
cite., in the clause relating to statutory conditions, were for
the most part agreed to; but the House reinserted the word
"persistently," struck cut by the Lords, in the condition
that the tenant shall not "persistently obstruct" his land-
lord in the exercise of his rights.
On the Lords' amendment expunging the new scale of
compensation for disturbance, a division was taken, and,
the House restored the clause to its original condition by
293 to 172.

The important amendments on Clause 7 (fair rents) were
not reached till close upon midnight, and the first of them
—which practically confers on the landlord a right to go into
Court without the condition precedent that he shall have
demanded an increase of rent—gave rise to a discursive, and
somewhat confused discussion.

Mr. Gladstene at the outset proposed to disagreewith the
Lords, insisting that the landlord, before appealing to the
Court, ought to have endeavoured to come to some agree-
ment with his tenant.

Mr. Gibson claimed that both parties should be placed on
an equal footing.
Mr. Brand suggested general words giving either party
power to go into court atter they had failed to come to an
agreement, while Sir S. Northcote thought that justice
would be done between the parties if the landlord were
allowed to go into court after the tenant had claimed a re-
duction which the landlord had refused.

Mr. Gladstone intimated that he was willing to reopen the
question in the direction suggested by Mr. Brand, but pre-
ferred another form of words.
Objection was taken to this course on the point of order,
but the Speaker held that it would be perfectly regular. The
Lords' amendment was first disagreed with, and Mr. Brand,
having moved his amendment, allowed it to be negatived, in
order that Mr. Gladstone's might be substituted; but the
Speaker declined to allow it to be put, on the technical
ground that it was identical with Mr. Brand's, which had
been negatived.

Sir S. Northcote thereupon moved his amendment, which
was negatived by 279 to 168
The next amendment was Lord Salisbury's, omitting from
the clause the direction to the Court "to have regard to
the interest of the landlord and tenant respectively," in
which Mr. Gladstone, coupling it with the subsequent
amendment on subsection 9, moved to disagree with the
Lords.

Sir S. Northcote and Mr. C. Russell made some observa-
tions, after which the House divided and negatived the
amendment by 270 to 154.

The debate was then adjourned, and some other business
having-been disposed of, the House adjourned at twenty-five
minutes to two o'clock.