MR. SPEAKER: If that be so, with MR. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker, on the indulgence of the House, I must re- former occasions attempts have been call the instructions I have given to the made to prosecute Breaches of Privilege, Clerk, and put the following Question : which attempts have subsequently been _“That this House do now adjourn.” found likely to lead to inconvenience;

Motion made, and Question proposed, and the House has, on the whole , “That this House do now adjourn.”

thought it prudent to retrace its steps. (Mr. Parnell.)

I apprehend we are perfectly free-in

deed, we have it on your authority-to MR. NEWDEGATE said, he was of act at this present moment according to opinion that the House should look for prudence. We had to pass an opinion guidance to its Leaders. The position on a document. We have not entered which the House had taken up was, it on the question of the excuses the writer seemed to him, a difficult one, for it left of that document may have to produce. the person inculpated by the Motion no The writer has the option, if he thinks opportunity of explaining or vindicating fit, of vindicating himself before the his conduct.

public. We were entitled to pass an Mr. SPEAKER: I have already stated opinion on the document before us. It to the hon. Member for the City of Cork cannot be surprising that I, who urged that he was not at liberty to debate a upon the hon. Member for Galway matter which had been already decided County not to proceed with the Motion by the House, and I must make the same which he desired to withdraw, but was observation to the hon. Member for prevented from withdrawing, should reNorth Warwickshire.

spectfully recommend to the House that Mr. HEALY said, the Irish Members we should not proceed any further, as had received some impressions from the we distinctly understand that there is no debate which would not be lost upon technical and formal obligation, and cer. them. They had often, full of a burn- tainly no moral obligation whatever to ing sense of the brutal and rusianly ar- that effect. The hon. Member for Wesrests under the Coercion Act, come down ford (Mr. Healy) says that I, who am to that House determined to have these continually urging the necessity of prothings debated; but his hon. Friend the ceeding with the Land Law (Ireland) Member for the City of Cork had de- Bill, gave, not only a patient and careclined to be any party to the proceed-ful, but sympathetic hearing to the Mo. ing, on the ground that it would ob- tion of the hon. Member for Galway. struct the Business of the Government. Now, I am bound to say I did not give But what had they seen that night? it a sympathetic hearing at all. After I When an hon. Member opposite rose to heard the discussion upon it, I thought make an attack upon Irish Members, matter of great importance was raised the Prime Minister not only had no word in that discussion which I was compelled of censure for him, although the Land to notice; but I must own that the foel. Law (Ireland) Bill was upon the Paper ing with which I heard my hon. Friend for discussion, but gave him a patient rise to make this Motion was the feeling and sympathetic hearing. Ho hoped which in my mind is invariable when I the hon. Member for the City of Cork, see that some of the few precious hours when next the Irish Members had griev- that we have at our disposal are about ances to ventilate, would remember how to be wasted, and that I regrotted the the Prime Minister countenanced at- subject was ever introduced. tempts to bring Irish affairs into disre- NR. T. P. O'CONNOR said, he hoped pute, and would avail himself of his the hon. Member for Galway would soright to move the adjournment when- cept the rebuke which the Prime Minister ever it suited him.

had just given him for having caused the MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR said, he waste of two hours and a half which should support the Motion for Adjourn- might have been devoted to the Land ment, because it seemed to him the Law (Ireland) Bill. He wished now to House was placed in an unprecedented appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to position, being asked to pass by with state what opportunity he proposed to out further notice a matter which it had give the Irish Members of discussing expressly declared to be a Breach of the Voto of Censure upon Ministers Privilege

which they had placed upon the Journals of the House, and the 10,000 or 15,000 | opening sentence of my speech in which impending evictions, which were a far I disclaimed any appeal to the House. more serious matter than the dispute MR. CALLAN: The hon. Member between the hon. Member for Mayo and for Mayo has applied the expression Mr. Egan. Would the right hon. Gen- "" That is not true to what was said by tleman give such an opportunity? The the hon. Member for Galway, and I right hon. Gentleman made no sign, and rise to call your attention to that obserit was now his duty to tell him that the vation. Irish Members would make the oppor- MR. HEALY: I understand that the tunity they desired. As for the subject words “That is not true are not unof that evening's debate, the Irish people usual, and I can bear testimony to your would form their own estimate of a Go- having already permitted that expression vernment which, under cover of a de- to be used. It is not two months ago fence of the hon. Member for Mayo, per- that the Chief Secretary to the Lord mitted a most dangerous attack to be Lieutenant used it. made upon the hon. Member for Cork MR. SPEAKER: These interruptions and the Land League. The Home Se- on points of Order are very often themcretary, in particular, seemed to tako solves disorderly. If I had heard any pleasure in baiting the hon. Member for such expression coming from the lips of Cork, so as to make him use expressions the hon. Member when he was addresswhich might be turned against him. It ing the House I should have interwas most unfair to take advantage of a posed. personal quarrel between individuals to Mr. CALLAN said, the words were vilify the Land League. Why, it might not used by the hon. Member who was be asked, did not hon. Members con- addressing the House, but by the hon. nected with tho Land League join in Member for Mayo, and were heard by that discussion? The reason was that a number of hon. Members sitting near. they did not wish to wash dirty linen in MR. SPEAKER: If any hon. Mem. public, and that they were awaro nothing ber made an observation of that kind it could be more gratifying to the House was a very disorderly proceeding: than the ignoble spectacle of Irishmen MR. T. P. O'CONNOR said, the hon. quarrelling among themselves. He would Member had asked him distinctly to state recommend the hon. Member for Gal- the truth, and that he most certainly way, who was so solicitous of the honour intended to do. The hon. Member had of Irish Members, to go to Galway and been accused, he would not say where, hear what his constituents had to say of a breach of Party loyalty, and the to him instead of setting such store hon. Member had been guilty of want upon the opinion of a prejudiced English of Party loyalty, because the hon. MemHouse of Commons. With regard to ber had no right to go into a Party and this letter, the form of it was very in- not abide by the decision of the majority elegant, nor was that of the hon. Mem- of the Party. Attempts had been made ber for Mayo much better.

to damage the Land League through MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member the quarrel between the hon. Member is adverting to a debate which is con- for Mayo and Mr. Patrick Egan. That cluded. He is not at liberty to do that. matter, however, had nothing to do with

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR! I was not the Land League. He had watched with adverting to that, but to a letter which great interest the proceedings of the I wish to bring before this IIouse. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secrehon. Member has used the expression tary, because the right hon. Gentleman " these white-livered filibusters of the was a master of Party tactics, and ho tongue have no fight in them.”

could have told exactly what the right MR. O'CONNOR POWER: Flear, hon. Gentleman would have said. hear!

MR. SPEAKER said, the hon. MomMN. T. P. O'CONNOR: The hon. ber was alluding to a former debato, and Member approves of that language. Ho ho must caution him that ho was out of may be a high judge of literary stylo; Order. but if, having used that language, he Mn. T. P. O'CONNOR apologized, comes here in forma pauporis-

and said, it was not easy to keep within Mr. O'CONNOR POWER: That is the four corners of a Motion for the adnot true. I deny it. You heard the jourumont of a debate when he wanted MR. H. R. BRAND said, the hon. , less than 15 years. A landlord ought to Member had not exactly understood his be allowed to let his land for any period Amendment, which limited the right of that suited him, whether it was three, six, free sale to the present tenants and their 10, or 15 years. If the Irish people had descendants, so that it should not extend the management of their own land toto future tenants succeeding them. morrow, they would not tolerate a restric

MR. GREGORY admitted that the tion such as this, and it would certainly present tenant should have the right to not be tolerated in any other country in sell; but he wanted to ascertain the Europe. In every country where a proeffect of this on future tenants. In prietor had his own land under his own fact, who were future tenants ? Were management, and desired to lease it, he they to exercise the same rights which only let it for a period which suited his were conferred by this Bill on present own convenience. Under these circum. tenants ? As he understood the Bill, the stances, he thought that that part of the present tenant had the right to go to the Bill which required a landlord to let Court and obtain a lease at a fixed rent his land for no less a period than 15 for 15 years, and that the power of sell- years was unsatisfactory, and should be ing was conferred on his successors. Was amended. the Court to carry on the title to his Mr. PELL understood the questions successors ? If that were so, he appre- raised to be these. What would happen hended that the Bill gave perpetuity of in the case of a tenant possessing himtenure. Did the Government mean to self of a freehold, and becoming the sole confer this ? Because, if they did, that possessor of the land? And what would perpetuity of tenure would be at once happen where the landlord had possessed stopped by the Amendment. Before the himself of the right of occupation, and Committee proceeded further, he thought had all the interest of the farm ? He this point should receive a satisfactory understood that the hon. Member for explanation.

Stroud (Mr. Brand) wished to obtain an MAJOR O’BEIRNE said, he was con- answer from the Law Officers of the nected with several properties where the Crown upon these points. He (Mr. Pell) right of sale existed, and it had been wished to know if it would be possible, found to be thoroughly beneficial, both in the event of the landlord leasing land, to the landlords and the tenants, when after having become possessed of the ever it had been exercised. As to the tenant right-in such a case as the case objection that the farmer paid such a of pastoral land turned into arable land, high price for his tenant right that it and in the event of the landlord wishing allowed him to realize no profit from to put in a new tenant, and the new the holding, that was a pure delusion. tenant going out in the course of a few Seeing that free sale of tenant right was years-would it be possible to make any established by the Bill, he thought the demand upon the landlord for the rights Government were bound to buy up the of the tenant on giving up the farm ? In estates of those persons who bought point of fact, what would such a tenant them in the Irish Estates Courts since have to sell ? What he wished to get at 1870. There was another question upon was this. Of course, the tenant would be which he wished to have an explanation compensated for any improvements ho -namely, with regard to the statutory had himself made, however short a time term of 15 years for the letting of land. he might have been upon the holding; If a landlord put a tenant into a farm but would he be entitled to compensafor a time, was it compulsory upon him tion for disturbance in respect of having to make the term 15 years ? If he could been the tenant of the land for a period not put any tenant into a farm under of, say, one or two years? How would statutory conditions for less than 15 he differ, or in what different position years, what would the landlord have to would he be, from the tenant who had do who wished to let his land for three bought the right of occupancy from the or four years only? No landlord would tenant who preceded him, and had not be content to take a tenant whom he taken the tenancy direct from the landonly wanted for a few years if he was to lord ? be compelled to buy him out afterwards. LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE It would, therefore, be a great objection was glad that the hon. Member for to the Bill if it were found that no land- South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had lord would be allowed to let his land for quite understood the Amendment of the , 1881) (Ireland) Bill. 1698 have been a most astute and intelligent, son, to let their holdings; but if the person, for he found, on account of the Bill remained as it now stood, they order in which it was arranged, it was would not be able to do so without impossible to criticize with advantage creating in the lessee a joint proprietary that portion of it which related to free interest with themselves. Having ad. sale. It was clear that the clause re- mitted the right of the present tenant lating to free sale was bound up with to an interest in the farm, it followed Clause 7. Looking from the point of that the present tenant had an interest view of the tenant's interest, he saw which he ought to be able to sell. Was very great objections to the principle of the same claim to be vested in the future free sale; but, as the tenants had asked tenant ? Surely it would be acknowfor that power, they would get it. But ledged that land which was free and unfrom the point of view of the owner's incumbered with tenant right was in a interest, he saw no insuperable objection different position from land which was to the principle of free sale, so long as subject to claims in respect of tenant

1 the owner had access to the Court, and right; and, therefore, he had to ask three care was taken that the rent should not questions. What was the claim of the be estimated with reference to the price present tenant? How long would the paid for that portion of the tenant right present tenancies exist ? And what was thich was exclusive of the value of the the nature and character of the claim of tenant's improvements. But how could the future tenant-that was to say, of one know what might become of Clause the man who came in after the deter7? If he were quite certain that the mination of the present tenancy ? Now, Government would take care that the the claim of the present tenant was competition value for mere possession of avowedly based on the fact that he had the farm should not be considered by increased and, in some cases, created the the Court in determining the rent, then productiveness of the soil, and that in from the point of view of the interest of some cases he and his predecessors in the landlord, he should not care what a title had continuously resided on the man gave for the farm when he came land. That being the claim of the prein. The right of sale, under the provi- sent tenant, how long would such tenansions of this section, was given by direct cies exist ? Turning to the 45th clause enactment, because it was denied that of the Bill, which was a very peculiar any such thing existed as freedom of one, he found these words-contract between owner and occupier in Ireland. He wished to point out that be deemed to have determined whenever it is

A tenancy to which this Act applies shall this inequality would be greatly re- sold in consequence of a breach by the tenant of dressed by the purchase clauses of the a statutory condition, or, in the case of a tenancy Bill; and, as far as he was concerned, not subject to statutory conditions, of an act or he should vote for any reasonable ex

default on the part of a tenant which would, in tension of those clauses, because he was stituted å breach thereof."

a tenancy subject to such conditions, have constrongly in favour of increasing the number of farmer proprietors in Ireland. Supposing, therefore, a tenant had comHon. Members opposite must feel, as mitted a breach of any statutory condiwell as he did, that no success would tion-for instance, supposing he had not attend the creation of a numerous pea- ' paid his rent, and upon notice given by sant proprietary; and that, in order to the landlord he elected to sell his teninsure success, the farms must be of a ancy—the tenancy would thus be detercertain size. He did not think any man termined. He had a question to ask could get on as a farmer with less than/ upon that point. If the tenant sold to a 20 acres of land. Notwithstanding this third party after breach of statutory conview, he hoped to receive some support dition, would he sell a tenancy of a less from hon. Members who followed the value than that which he himself poshon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. sessed ? In his opinion, a breach of Parnell), because they must know very statutory condition ought not to occasion well that the new owners would meet, a determination of the tenancy. If this with great disadvantages from the ope- were the case, present tenancies might ration of this clause. Some of them,' exist for a very long period of time, for instance, after coming into posses- seeing that the holders of such tenancies sion of their holdings, might have occa- had a right to devise or alienate them, sion, through illness or some other rea- and his Amendment would only effect VOL. CCLXI. (THIRD SERIES.]

3 I

[ Third Night. ]

tenancies upon which the tenant right he ans had become merged in the fee simple. there What, then, would be the position of the ri the future tenant? He would have no their claim in respect of labour, because he other had never put a spade into the ground, right and he would have no claim for im- The s provements, because he had not made tenant any; and yet, according to the Bill, come the very day he came in he could were sell his interest. But what was it from t that he could sell? Then, if the land- he rep lord let at a low rent, he would secure ments himself in that case by exacting a heavy withir premium, and the tenant would be rack- for hi rented. It was evident that, whatever the Co they might do by Act of Parliament, they measu could not in future prevent the owner think from getting his full value for the suffici hire of his land, and they could not had to prevent the tenant having to pay the the qu equivalent of the full commercial value perma of the land. That state of things, which indust the Bill would perpetuate, could hardly portur be good for Ireland. He put it to the trious hon. Member for the City of Cork whe- withou ther tenants who purchased their in the go terest from the landlord would like the sent fo operation of this clause ? He regretted be bro the Prime Minister was not in his place, capita because he wished to quote the words of for go the right hon. Gentleman for the purpose sion, h of strengthening his argument. The right who d hon. Gentleman, in speaking against per- pered, petuity of tenure—and the words applied would to the necessity which would exist for every every future tenant in Ireland having to the An pay a premium on coming in-said“If I am only to let it to a perpetuity man, I

Ame can only let it to that class of men who are to leay prepared to cultivate the soil and to pay me the being, price of the permanent possession. The strange word position in which we should then find ourselves would be that all that active and energetic class THE which does not require any permanent estate in IRELA the land, but exists by the intelligent and profitable application of capital to farming purposes,

Membo would be absolutely proscribed. You would not wished anywhere let a man in to put a spade or a plough farms into the ground unless he was able to purchase got an the perpetual estate."

Irelani Such, then, was the position in which he of pres maintained Ireland would find herself landlor by the operation of this Bill, not for a mitted short period, but in perpetuity. There unprov were only two objections against his in the ] proposal. One was, that it would estab- withou lish two classes of tenants in Ireland ; future and the other, that there would be a sumed grievance felt by one class because it The far did not enjoy the same advantages as landlor vere possessed by the other. To this lation

Mr. I. R. Brand

to mov

« ForrigeFortsett »