The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-29 00:00:00

IMPERIA_L PARLIAMEN r.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY.
The Lord Chancellor took his seat on the woolsack at
five o'clock.
THE IRISH LAND BILL.
The committee on this bill was resumed by their lord-
ships. Clauses 10 and 11 were agreed to without amend-
ment. On clause 12 being proposed an amendment was
moved by Lord Courtown to include caretakers or cottier
tenants in the provisions of the clause.—Lord Lifford
supported the proposition, remarking that although the
proposition was a small one it would do a great deal of
good.—After some discussion, the amendment was nega-
tived without a division, but Earl Granville agreed to.
consider a proposal of the Earl of Leitrim'to omit the
words " of the landlord," and state his intention on the
bringing up of the report.—The clause was then agreed
to, Lord Redesdale remarking that it had occupied their
lordships' attention for two hours.—Lord Dunsany then
moved the insertion of a new clause giving the landlord
or his agent the right to enter upon the lands to ascertain
whether any waste or damage had been committed, and
that the covenants had been observed by the tenants.—At
the request of Earl Granville the amendment was deferred
until the bringing up of the report, when he would state
whether it could be accepted as regarded the yearly tenants.
Clause 13 was agreed to, as was also clause 14, after an
amendment had been made by the Duke of Richmond, to
the effect that disputes relative to claims made by the
tenants might be settled by agreement between landlord
and tenant.—An additional clause was then moved by
Lord Monck, providing that a landlord!desirous of alter-
ing the conditions on which a teuant entitledtocrlvae aim
compensation; &c., occupies his holding, might serve
notice to that effect, the tenant being deemed to have ac-
quiesced therein unless he notified his refusal within the
prescribed time, such refusal raising a dispute which
should be decided by the court, an eviction following a de-
cision in favour of the landlord not being deemed a dis-
turbance of holding. The amendment, which was ob-
jected to, as all that was e
intended was accomplished by a
subsequent clauses, was not pressed.
Clause 15 was agreed to. —The Duke of Richmond, how-
ever, moved an additional clause, providing that the
awards and decrees of the court should state the items of
the claim allowed, namely, the particulars of tenant's loss
in quitting his holding, and of improvements and pay-
ments to his predecessor in respect of which compensation
might have been awarded, also particulars of set off, ob-
jection, default, or conduct taken -into account.—The
Lord Chancellor objected to the proposed amendment as
likely to lead to the most inconvenient results.--Lord
sed amendment a
Cairns thought the propo judicious one.
With a modification the clause was ultimately inserted in
the bill.
Clause 16 was agreed to. On clause 17 an addition was
moved by Lord Penzance and agreed to, giving the land-
lord
.the option of paying money into court, and giving
the court the power, afterLinquiry, to allow the landlord
out of such money compensation for damage done by the
tenant to his holding or the building thereon, after claim-
ing compensation. The clause was then ordered to
stand part of the bill.
Clauses 18, 19, and 20 were agreed to. After clause 21,
Lord Lifford moved an additional clause, stating that
nothing in the Act should be construed as to affect or
injure the right of the landlord to accept or refuse a pro-
posed incoming tenant. On a division the clause was re-
jected, -the numbers being—for the clause 40, against it 59.
The next clauses, up to 39 inclusive, were agreed to with-
out amendment.—On clause 40 Earl Grey proposed the
omission of the clause with regard to advances to tenants
for purchase of holding. He said the effect of the passing
of the clause would be most serious, as in his opinion it
would tend to increase disaffection by making a number of
small holders debtors to the State. It would strengthen
revolutionary movements, because there would be the in-
ducement of relief from a debt which would hang like a
millstone round the necks oft. each, as well as the gaining
of their political object. In his opinion the proposal was
a premium for disaffection, and therefore he moved its
omission from the bill.—Earl Granville took a different
view. He was of opinion that by giving the peasants of
Ireland a stake in the country by enabling them to pur-
chase the holdings in which they naturally had so strong
an interest, the most beneficial results would follow
the passing of the bill which contained the clause.
—The Earl of Carnarvon, although not favourable to
the increase of small holdings, thought it would be well
to agree to the clause as its omission might create great
disappointment in Ireland.—The Earl of Malmesbury
said he believed the clause, to be a great sham and a hum-
bug. If the noble earl had not moved its omission he
should have taken upon himself that duty.
The proposal to omit the clause was negatived without
a division. .

On Clause 41 being proposed, which provided for ad-
vances to tenants for purchases of holdings in the Landed
Estates Court, the Duke of Richmond moved that it be
struck out of the bill.—Earl Granville did not see how,
after agreeing to the previous clause, they could consent
to the proposal of the noble duke.—After some further
discussion the Duke of Richmond withdrew his proposal,
and the clause was ordered to stand part of the bill.
Clauses 42 to 52 were agreed to without amendment.
On Clause 53, which set out that a duty of two shillings
and sixpence should be paid on a notice to quit, the Earl
of Leitrim moved its omission, but not succeeding in
obtaining another peer to act as teller the cla use was
agreed to amid loud laughter.
On Clause 54 the Duke of Richmond moved an amend-
ment that notices to quit in the case of yearly tenants
should not take effect for six months, instead of one year,
as provided in the bill.—The amendment was agreed to.
I, Clauses up to 65 were agreed to, with some verbal
amendments.
Clause 66 was struck out.

The remaining clauses were then agreed to, and the
Chairman was about reporting the bill with amendments,
when the Earl of Leitrim expressed his disapproval at
the result of the committee. He said that the bill had
been introduced in a rank and party spirit against the
landlords of Ireland, and that the result of its passing
would be most disastrous.
The reception of the report was fixed for Tuesday,
amidst some slight cheering.
Their lordships rose at twenty-five minutes to one.