was of the utmost consequence that they should be threshed out on the present occasion, that they should be defined, and their scope and limit carefully discussed and made clear to the mind of the public. It was no exaggeration to say that no measure had ever been laid before that House which had been fraught with more anxious and more momentous consequences both for the present and the future than that which was now under discussion. They had to consider, in the first place, the very grave and serious state of things which now existed in Ireland; and, secondly, how that state of things was to be dealt with. He did not think it too much to say that by this measure they were about to combat a revolution by means of a revolutionary measure; and he was perfectly convinced that if they were justified on the present occasion in accepting the homeopathic maxim of endeavouring to cure like by like, they must not lose sight of that other maxim as to the employment of those dangerous remedies, and take care that if not given in infinitesimal doses, yet it was given in a manner carefully weighed and perfectly understood. In the remarkable speech made by the Prime Minister when he introduced the Bill, he told them the greatest difficulty the Government had to contend against had arisen from wild discussions from Communistic schemes and appeals to public passion. They all knew to what he alluded, and they would agree with him that those dangers and difficulties were by no means over now that the Bill was introduced, and would not be over when it was actually passed. It was impossible for anyone who realized the position not to look with grave apprehension to what would happen when the Bill was passed. How was the Bill received as far as Ireland was concerned? In some cases with what he could only call hypocritical approval, and in others with the open and avowed declaration that it was not to be used as a measure of peace and tranquillity, but for the purposes of inciting in the future to more dangerous agitation than in the past. Everything was done to turn the good into evil, and the most dangerous way that could be done was by exciting in the minds of the credulous but honest population hopes and expectations which were quite impossible to be realized. It appeared to

Mr. Errington

him that nothing was more cruel than exciting such hopes. It was necessary for them all to combine in order to defeat such tactics, and to make people understand that the measure was what he believed it would be-namely, a fair and honest measure, and that it would do all law could do to redress honest and fair grievances, but that it never could gratify the wild expectations so unfairly raised. Nothing could be further from his mind than the wish to minimize the effect of the Bill; but he thought it better that people should be disappointed before rather than after the Bill had become law. In this respect the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) deserved commendation, inasmuch as it placed clearly before the country the real scope and character of the measure. He preferred to accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman as the exponent of what was a wise and statesmanlike measure than certain more recent speakers. One of the most important points he had raised was the definition of fair rent; and he was glad that he had elicited from the Government in no doubtful terms that they admitted the same definition, and he was glad to hear that because it showed him that, after all, there was common ground on which they could all approach the subjectthat common ground being the necessity, which was frankly admitted to exist in Ireland as well as in England and among landlords as well as among tenants, that some law must be passed in regard to land. He thought they ought all to combine to make that Bill what he trusted it would be, not a triumph for any Party nor for any class, but a Bill of fairness and justice to all classes of persons. There was one point in the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin to which he took exception, and that was in regard to the drafting of the Bill. He had said that the Bill was obscure; but it appeared to him (Mr. Errington) that the obscurity was not due so much to the Bill as it was to the subject; and if hon. Gentlemen found a difficulty in understanding the subject, how could they expect to very readily understand the Bill? The question of free sale had been discussed again and again; but it was of such importance, that he should

as

like to repeat to the House two strong reasons in its favour which could not be repeated too often. Hitherto, one of the greatest misfortunes was the ignorance of English people with regard to Irish ideas. Complicated and illogical "free sale" appeared to English minds, and as applied to English ideas, it was in thorough accordance with the whole spirit and genius of Irish institutions and conditions. Hitherto, English legislation for Ireland had neglected all consideration of Irish ideas; the result had been uniform failure and disappointment. He hailed with pleasure this new departure and this attempt to legislate for Ireland according to the spirit of Irish institutions. The second great argument in favour of free sale was that it was the only way of effectually stimulating the energy and industry of the tenant. It did this by securing him an interest the value of which varied to a great extent according to his own industry. Self-interest was the only motive they could rely on; but hitherto the self-interest of the Irish tenant had been enlisted on the wrong side; it was his interest not to improve, for improvements only suggested to him a rise of rent. Now, the benefit of every hour's extra energy and labour would be secured to him; but in order that this should be so it was necessary that "free sale" should be really and completely free, and this brought him to a very grave defect in the Bill. The Bill provided that in almost every case the landlord should have the right of preemption, necessarily accompanied by the provision that the price of the tenantright should be fixed by the Court. This, he ventured to say, would seriously cripple the advantage of "free sale," for no Court could measure, nor could be believed to measure, accurately the results of tenants' general improvements, It must be remembered that the larger and more important improvements, such as building and draining, would be quite the exception. What he was desirous to stimulate were those general, impalpable, but very real improvements in the general condition of the farm arising from good management and manual industry. No Court could test these in the way a public sale would. He was aware that there were strong reasons for securing the right of pre-emption to the landlord. The Prime Minister told them

that Ireland was not in a fit state for absolute freedom of contract, and, therefore, he proposed to interpose a period of change. He probably wished to leave open certain doors, of which this right of pre-emption was one, by which the country must some day return; but he earnestly begged the Prime Minister to weigh very carefully whether he was not paying too dear a price for it in so seriously interfering with the most beneficial effects of free sale. He hoped the landlords would not blindly defend that point. Let them consider-what he believed very few had-what real advantage it conferred on them. He ventured to say few landlords would avail themselves of it, and yet the effect would be just as injurious as if all did so. In its evil effects it would be very like the present right of capricious eviction; few landlords used it, but, as all might use it, its evil effects were nearly as great as if all did. Now, there was one very serious argument brought against free sale which he did not wish to pass over without a word. It was said that, owing to the competition for land, excessive prices would be paid for the tenant right, thus placing the incoming tenant under an extreme rack rent, so that we were in reality undoing with one hand what we were doing with the other. He admitted that in theory this argument was unanswerable; but he contended that when applied in practice the consequences would be totally different, as was often the case with theoretical arguments. In the first place, the Irish tenant did not, and never would, regard the interest of the money spent in purchasing tenant right in the same light as rent; he might be, and was, wrong economically, but this was the fact. He knew that the capital in the one case belonged to him, and would return to him when he pleased, and though this, as we knew, made no real difference, it did so in his mind. Then, again, it was contended that because tenants in Ireland would often promise impossible rents in order to enter on possession of a farm, therefore they would pay an exhorbitant sum of ready money for the same purpose. But the difference was immense between the two cases. There was great difference between promising and paying down ready money; and in the long run a man who had money might be trusted to take care [Fifth Night.]

of it. But he fully admitted that it was most important not needlessly to stimulate an appetite for land, which the general tendency of this Bill would certainly not diminish; and this brought him to what he considered another grave flaw in the Bill, for there was nothing in the Bill to prevent a tenant raising money by mortgage on the tenant right. That, he feared, would be a great temptation to the incoming tenant to pay an exhorbitant price and throw himself entirely into the hands of the usurer. The consequences would be disastrous, for the tenant from the first moment of entering his farm would have no interest in the tenant right, consequently, no inducement to improve. The other great advantage of tenant right would also be lost, for if the tenant failed, or left the farm from any cause, instead of going away with a good sum of money in his pocket to help him to set up elsewhere, the money would go to the usurer, and the tenant would leave, as at present, with misery and vengeance in his heart. He, therefore, hoped some provision would be introduced, making it illegal to recover any mortgage on the tenant right. He would make one exception, and allow a mortgage by testamentary disposition for the benefit of a widow or younger children. No doubt, the economical arguments against usury laws in general would be cited against him; but here, again, he appealed from theory to practice. He had a precedent in India, where, in conditions as nearly as possible identical with those of Ireland, these provisions were found necessary to protect the "ryot" from the money-lender. This might appear at first sight an unwelcome restriction to the Irish tenant, and people would, no doubt, be found to misrepresent and abuse him for speaking thus. But he felt he was acting for the true interest of the tenant farmer in endeavouring to save him from the clutches of the usurer, and if his advice was not taken the day would come when many a poor farmer would bitterly regret it. It was, however, objected that all that fine scheme of "free sale" and "fair rents" was built on robbery, or, as the fashionable expression was, "that they were carving an interest for the tenant out of the landlord's property." That was another instance of rash statement based on theory and without knowledge

Mr. Errington

or consideration of practical matters. He contended that no tangible or material interest was transferred from the landlord. What the Bill did was to liberate a capital at present locked up and unavailable, and which was in abeyance between landlord and tenant. The landlord had the legal right; but in most cases he neither could nor would exercise it, and most landlords thought they ought not to do so. On the other hand, almost all authorities in Ireland, as well as in England, admitted that the equitable right vested in the tenant; but he, of course could not use it except on sufferance. It was, therefore, in its present condition useless to everyone, and it was certain that so long as things remained as they were the landlord would never use it. What they proposed in the Bill was to call that right out of abeyance in favour of the tenant, in whom vested the equitable right. If that was to be called confiscation, the whole thing was a childish argument about words. As the Bill was founded on "free sale," and as "free sale" depended on "fair rents," so "fair rents" depended on the "Court," and thus, in reality, on the Court, its character and efficiency, really turned in the last resort the operation of the measure. He quite agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), that there ought to be equal access to the Court for the landlord and the tenant. They had heard a great deal lately about prestige. Whatever hon. Members might think of prestige in the East, they would not deny that on the prestige of the Court in Ireland its success would greatly depend. As at present proposed, he feared its prospects of obtaining or deserving prestige were small. Almost all authorities agreed in condemning the employment of the County Courts as courts of first instance under the Bill. In the first place, uniformity of judgment was essential, and it would be impossible to obtain this from over 20 Judges, all of whom were already pledged to various views and opinions on most of the questions which would now come before them; and besides, it was notorious that, rightly or wrongly, these Courts would not command the confidence of the people. It, therefore, did appear to him that those who were to administer that new measure should come to its consideration