merits due to the Prime Minister or to his Government for introducing a measure such as this, and he cordially allowed that it constituted a revolution with regard to the tenure of land in Ireland. He should therefore support, and should not oppose, the principles of the Bill. But while he went so far, he must entirely deny the allegation of the hon. Member who had just spoken that the agitation to which he referred encouraged wild schemes, and proceeded by trafficking on the credulity of the people. What were the objects of the Bill which was brought in, not by agitators nor by conspirators, but by the responsible Governnient of Her Majesty? Its first object was to render more fair and more just the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland; and, having done so much to promote the creation of an occupying proprietary, what were the objects of the National Land League? He had become a member of that organization lately; but, before doing so, and before taking the position of president of one of its most important branches in the City of Dublin, he asked what were the provisions to which he was asked to subscribe. In answer to his request, he received the card of the Land League, which he held in his hand, and in which were enumerated two distinct objects. The first was to put an end to rack-renting, eviction, and landlord oppression, which was the object of the Bill before the House. It was to put an end to rack-renting by means of a State tribunal; to put an end to eviction, which the Prime Minister called a sentence of death; and to put an end to the oppression which was the whole raison d'étre of the measure. Would the hon. Member for Longford tell his constituents that two propositions so perfectly analogous, the one introduced by the Government and the other distinctly put forward by the Land League, were trafficking on the credulity of the people, and encouraging them to wild and impossible schemes? The second object of the Land League was to effect such a radical change in the land system of Ireland as would put it in the power of every Irish farmer to become the owner, on fair terms, of the land he tilled. What was the fifth part of the Bill? Why, it piposed to afford facilities to effect the very object of the Land League. If, therefore, the hon. Member for Long ford reflected upon that fact, must he not confess that the whole of his oration, though it might win a certain popularity in that House, bristled with unfounded accusations against the very people who sent him there. Coming to the Bill itself, he must say, as he said already at Carlow, that he thanked the Government for the principles enunciated in it, which appeared to him to be a revolution in the right direction on this momentous question. However, on account of the details in which it abounded, he was not in a position to give it, in the present shape, that unlimited support which he hoped to be able to give it in its final passage through the House. One of the gravest charges against the Land League, and against an hon. Member of that House, who was now unable to occupy that place which he would adorn if he were present, was that they were accused of propounding extreme doctrines when they said that tenants in Ireland ought not to pay more than Griffith's valuation. In The Times newspaper of the previous day, he read an editorial article in which it was stated that the Bill would probably leave the rental of estates, which were about Griffith's valuation, unaltered; but it would reduce all other rents to that point. That was the pronouncement of The Times; but if anyone in Ireland attempted to propound such a doctrine he would at once be called a Communistic agitator. With regard to leases, he certainly understood, from the speech of the Prime Minister, that the Bill would have a retrospective effect. The right hon. Gentleman, in speaking of the harshness inflicted on those who were obliged to contract under pressure, said the Bill would establish a Court that could take cognizance of any lease whose provisions were not in accordance with the judicial lease. If the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to include existing leases, he certainly should have done so; because the whole reason of this great revolution and the burning interest which the question assumed was due to the loud and prolonged complaints of those who were suffering from injuries inflicted by leases with conditions such as he had described. With respect to arrears of rent which had accumulated because of the impossible conditions which the unfortunate tenants were forced to assume, he did not propose that they should be wiped out; [Fifth Night.] D 2 but if they were to be met, he certainly | the Government; but entirely dissented. thought it should be on the same basis from the proposal to hand over the work as the new rents fixed by the Courts. of reclamation to Joint Stock Companies, There was a clause in the Bill which whether English or Irish. The people appeared to him to bear a strong resem- of Ireland did not want English money blance to the clause in the Act of 1870 or English patronage, but they did rewhich encouraged consolidation. The quire justice. If they obtained that they Bill declared that tenants with a valua- would and could cultivate the land, tion of £150 and upwards should have firmly believing that there were ample the power of contracting themselves out resources for the sustenance of a much of the benefit of the Act. He entirely larger population than they had at predisapproved of any such provision, be- sent. He had been greatly startled by cause it would be putting the landlord the devolution clauses of the Bill, bein a position in which he could say that cause they tied down the people to one a number of small tenants could cause heir, and really perpetuated the Law of him any amount of trouble and annoy- Primogeniture, to which it was underance. But if he had large tenants whose stood such men as the Prime Minister, valuations were over £150, he would be the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lanenabled to make arrangements with caster, and the Chief Secretary for Irethem which would render the provisions land, and other prominent Members of of the Act nugatory. He was afraid the Government were strongly opposed. that the retention of the words "free It was an entirely retrograde policy. sale" was calculated to create a wrong The Government having made two such impression in certain cases where the mistakes as these, they proposed emiright of pre-emption enabled certain gration, which, in reality, was the necesfarms to be sold without being put up sary outcome of their legislation. The to public competition. With respect to waste land clauses would not allow the the local Courts, he did not think the people of Ireland to become proprietors, provision of the Bill satisfactory. The to become happy and independent in judgments of the County Court Judges their own country; and the devolution were marked by such diversity of opi- clauses would not allow them to have a nion, and their demeanour in many chance of getting the land into their cases was of such a character, as to de- own hands. He had no sentimental obprive them of the confidence of the jection to emigration; but held that the people. He did not approve of local resources of the country ought to be deassessors, because he was entirely veloped to the utmost before recourse against the importation of anything like was had to it, and that it should not be local prejudice into the decision of cases thought necessary to promote it until of such importance. Witnesses would there should exist an absolutely surplus be examined, and a Judge previously population for whom sustenance at home unacquainted with the circumstances would be a matter of impossibility. He would be more likely to come to a just had always endeavoured to promote the conclusion than any local person. He proper accommodation of the labouring did not think the present County Court classes; and he thought a clause might Judges possessed the confidence of the easily be inserted in the Bill stipulating country. He had known cases where that the agricultural tenant holdings the Judge had said to applicants in the should comply with all the sanitary conCourts "You had better go to Mr. ditions which made life comfortable and Gladstone or to the Land League.' tolerable. He would also wish to introThere certainly had been many in- duce a provision that the rents of those stances in which the Courts had shown tenements should be of such a nature a strong animus in favour of the land- that they should include in their weekly lords. Such flippancy, when treating charge the purchase money of the cotof a serious subject, betrayed a con- tages and plots of ground. The contempt, and the judgments themselves dition that tenants should pay onerevealed an animus, which unfitted such fourth of the purchase money he could men for holding the fate of the Irish not approve. The Prime Minister altenant in their hands. Turning to the lowed the Government securities which scheme for the reclamation of waste lands, the tenant right gave the tenant to he expressed sympathy with the object of raise the other fourth; but, if so, why Mr. Dawson not the Government supply it, instead | so, it was much to be regretted that it of forcing the tenant in many cases to was not stated in the Bill. The Chief raise it at high interest? He acknow- Secretary diverged very quickly from ledged willingly and frankly that the the question how the fair rent was to be Bill contained good and sound principles. found. Not the least important consiWhile, however, he said that, he could deration was whether it was desirable not help adding that if it passed in its that the fair rent should be based on present condition, it would not be a a competition rent, which the Commeasure which would effect the object mission had decided was not generally Her Majesty's Government had in view exacted by landlords. The right hon. in promoting it. For his part, he would Gentleman quoted the opinion of the be happy to assist in any changes which O'Conor Don, that rents must be less would add to the usefulness of the Bill; than the fair commercial letting value and he believed that if the Government of the land; but he did not state that would consider favourably and support the O'Conor Don added that it would the Amendments which would be sub- be contrary to justice and sound policy mitted by those with whom he acted, the for the State to take away private rights Bill would become an effective measure, without giving compensation. It was, such as the Prime Minister promised to therefore, unfair to represent the O'Conor make it-one which would tend to pro- Don as favouring a diminished rent withmote the peace and prosperity of Ire- out adding his proviso with regard to land. that compensation which the Bill did not give. He believed the Government preferred that a term so controversial as competition rent should not find a place in the Bill; but he should be much mistaken if, when the Bill came to be interpreted in a Court of Law, the present indefinite expressions were not super MR. BRODRICK said, there were few who would not regret that speeches similar to those made in the House that night had been addressed to their constituents by some Irish Members, for much of the difficulty which had arisen might have been avoided if responsible persons had not excited anti-seded by that of competition rent, which cipations which could not be fulfilled, and led tenants to expect something which the Government could not give. One thing which struck him in listening to Irish Members was that they discussed the question without recognizing the truth that their facts and arguments were less applicable to the whole of Ireland than to the particular portions with which they happened to be connected. The fault of the present Bill was that it attempted similarly to apply an universal rule to the whole of Ireland. The difficulty thus involved in criticizing the measure was increased by the fact that there were certain parts of the Bill that were still shrouded in obscurity, because criticisms and questions had not been answered by the Government. That was particularly the case with regard to Clause 7, and the House had a right to expect that direct answers should be given to the questions that had been put. The Members of the Government seemed to differ in some respects as to the interpretation which they put upon the clause. The Attorney General for Ireland said the rent was to be found by taking away the price of the tenant right from the competition rent. If that were alone would satisfy hon. Members on that side of the House. He hoped the next Member of the Government who spoke would clear up these difficulties, so that the remaining speeches might be addressed, not merely to the intentions of the Government, but to the actual facts of the case as they would appear when interpreted by legal authorities. The Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) dwelt more with the theoretical mistakes that would be made by the Bill than with the practical effect it would have on the people of Ireland. No invasion of the rights of property could, it must be admitted, be greater in theory than that which was involved in making freedom of contract almost a matter of the past. But still it would have been possible for a much shorter Bill to have taken a great deal more from the landlords, and to have given a great deal more to the tenants of that practical independence at which they were striving. And such a Bill would not, in practice, he hoped, be so terrible in its operation as the noble Lord anticipated. He had been much struck by the references made during the debate to the [Fifth Night.] speech of the noble Lord the Mem- | 100 years ago exactly the same difficulty ber for Barnstaple (Viscount Lyming- now felt in Ireland had occurred. Heavy ton) in consequence of his connection charges were laid on the tenant; there with an estate in Wexford where the was great disaffection, poverty, and benefits of free sale were supposed to misery among the people; and the landbe such as to justify its extension to the lords had great difficulty in obtaining whole of the country. Now, he had some their rights. The Government of Geracquaintance with that property, and he many addressed themselves to the difficonfessed he did not think the reference culty in a manner not dissimilar to that would commend the experiment which adopted by right hon. Gentlemen oppohad been attempted on that property to site. They found there was undoubtedly the House. The great object they should some proprietary right in the tenant, have in view was to establish some per- which made his being placed absomanent system by which the soil of Ire-lutely at the mercy of the landlord a land would be improved both by the landlord and the tenant. Now, what were the facts of that case? The Nobleman in question had a property in Wexford from which he was reputed to draw £18,000 a-year; but he had never laid out on that property 1s.; he never resided on it, or in Ireland; to all intents and purposes he was an instance of an unmitigated absentee landlord, who drew a large profit from his estate, and did nothing for its improvement. Was that a system to be applauded or followed? He thought that the adoption of such a principle of estate management would be in direct opposition to the Land Act of 1870, and most injurious to the real interests of the soil. And yet this was the system which they were invited by the Government to establish in the parts of Ireland which were now free from it. Nor must it be forgotten that there were many tenants in Ireland, especially in the South, who would care wondrously little for legislative securities if in them were involved the loss of those traditional securities which existed in the confidence and good feeling of their landlord. It was all very well to say that the Bill conferred security of tenure for 15 years; but this, in the minds of many yearly tenants, meant, not the lengthening of a yearly tenancy, but the shortening of that perpetual tenure which had been enjoyed under good landlords. But it would be said that they could not ignore the proprietary right of the tenant, which had grown up under the Act of 1870. But this did not necessarily involve a system of dual ownership. The First Commissioner of Works had stated that in all parts of the Continent the tendency had been to establish the proprietary right of the tenant. There was one exception. In a part of Germany Mr. Brodrick great cruelty and a hardship. The State A that any reduction of rent would be | lord and tenant in Ireland, they were more than counterbalanced by the pay- asked to recognize this in addition to ment for tenant right under the Bill, the tenant right, which would be a gross the incoming tenant would be out of injustice. The class of estates on which pocket by the transaction. Side by side improvements had been made by the with the apparent prosperity of Ulster landlords was not sufficiently protected had grown up a system of indebtedness by the Bill, and ought to be separated the extent and importance of which from the class on which the tenants were it was difficult to exaggerate. A gen- the improvers. He felt very strongly tleman managing 70,000 acres had said that where a tenant had taken a piece that the indebtedness of tenants in of bog, for example, and reclaimed it Ulster was so great that they paid by his own labour a great deal was due more to the usurers than to the land- to him. But, on the other hand, he lords. He had himself seen an adver- would ask the House to deal equally tisement of a wholesale stationer in fairly with the landlords who had made Ulster, who said that at present he improvements on their estates. The made up five times as many bill books right hon. Gentleman opposite said that for the entry of accounts as he had done the Government had put in a most before the Act of 1870 had passed. It important provision to protect the landmight be concluded from that fact that lord, for they allowed him to take somesince the number of the Ulster tenants thing from the value of the tenant right had not increased, their indebtedness was to compensate him for his improvenow five times as great as before the Act ments; but could that compensate him of 1870. It had been argued by the hon. for being saddled with a tenant who and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. from land hunger paid far more for Charles Russell), and echoed by the hon. the tenant right than it was worth, Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson), that who had no capital left to work the the arrears of rent should be dealt with farm, and who impoverished the land, by the Bill. But the hon. and learned while the landlord was not able to Member for Dundalk ought in logical do anything to prevent it? They were sequence to have argued that it was told the landlord could object to an innot merely arrears due to the landlords, coming tenant on the ground of the inbut also debts due to shopkeepers and sufficiency of his means. Now, he would others that should be dealt with. That ask the Attorney General for Ireland, would have been a measure of equality who knew the country well, how was and justice which they should have ex- it possible for a landlord to know pected from the Benches opposite. The anything about the sufficiency of hon. and learned Member for Dundalk means of the tenant coming on his adduced the instance of the small far- property? How could he know that mers in France, whose arrears, he said, a tenant in the South of Ireland were forgiven by the landlords in bad had not borrowed the money from a years. Now, it seemed to him somewhat bank in the North? Let it be required unjust that in Ireland, where tenant that the incoming tenant should prove right was to be recognized and com- the sufficiency of his means, not that the pensation given for improvements, land- landlord should prove the insufficiency lords should be required to make allow of the tenant's means, and that would ances to tenants for arrears. When the be much fairer. Then, as to going into hon. and learned Member spoke of the Court to prove that the character of the custom in France he spoke of it as tenant was bad, that would only expose a matter of statute law, whereas, in the landlord to an action at law. fact, it was a matter of free contract must not be forgotten that a great numbetween the tenant and the land- ber of landlords in the South of Ireland lord, and a French writer had recently had spent large sums in order to keep out stated that four-fifths of the tenancies of their estates this custom of free sale, in France had been contracted out of which the noble Lord the Member for these conditions. It was obvious that Barnstaple (Viscount Lymington) said in those contracts, which made the was so good a thing. But this was not tenant a sort of partner with the all. They were going to subject a landlord, both shared in the gains and good landlord who had not asked for a the losses. But in the case of the land-rise of rent to a penalty to which a bad It [Fifth Night.] |