out it; there is no real, and no true | opinions on that subject, than the adfriend of Ireland, who can deny that, vantages and the necessity of providing in their proposals for emigration, the for the surplus population of the West, Government have taken a step, and by an offer of migration as well as emia long step, in the right direction. gration from the country; and I hope However, I cannot, on the second read- that the Government, if Amendments ing of a Bill like this, enter into the should be moved in that direction, will details of any scheme of emigration. see their way to accept them, in order There may be difficulties, no doubt, but to enlarge their scheme as far as migrathey are by no means insuperable; and tion is concerned. Now, Sir, I suppose to those who have been enabled to make it would not be proper if I said anything themselves acquainted with the views as to the establishment, or re-establishand opinions of men competent to form ment, of manufacturing industries in Irean opinion on the subject-men, for land. I was struck by something that instance, like Lord Dufferin, who has fell from the right hon. Gentleman the enjoyed peculiar facilities-in arriving Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at a judgment on the merits of Irish the other night on this point. No doubt, emigration, both in our Colonies and at Ireland does possess exceptional advanhome, like Mr. Tuke, and others, who tages in water power which might be have written or have spoken on it, there turned to great advantage; and I cancannot be a question, or a doubt, that a not think that any reforms or remedial scheme of emigration, properly organ- legislation that may be adopted can be ized, and conducted with due and proper considered satisfactory or complete which safety wards made for the reception of does not include encouragement, and, if the emigrants, and for starting them necessary, assistance for the re-estabupon their new career on their arrival lishment of some of those industries in with their families, would confer a bless- Ireland which, in former days, were ing and untold boon, not only upon destroyed by the bitterly unjust and those who go, but on those as well who selfish policy of England. Well, now, stay behind. But I would not stop at Sir, I come to the proprietary clauses of emigration, and at that alone; I should the Bill, the darling project, I presume, like myself to offer to these people an of the right hon. Gentleman the Chanalternative as well-namely, that of cellor of the Duchy of Lancaster-his migration to other parts of Ireland. In beau ideal of rural happiness and prosfact, to give them the choice between perity, not only in Ireland, but, I beemigration and migration wherever it lieve, throughout the world. Now, I was possible; and wherever land could quite admit the social and political imbe reclaimed with advantage for that portance of adding largely, if possible, purpose. I cannot give my adhesion to to the number of owners of land in Irethe scheme proposed by the hon. Mem- land at the present time; but I do not ber who sat near me the other night, think that your Bill is in the least dethat the grazing lands of Ireland should gree happily designed for the accombe purchased, broken up, and adapted plishment of that object. All I can say for the purpose. To me, it seems that is this-that if I had to choose between to require that the grazing lands should the position of an occupier or owner, a be cut up in the worst and most incon- landlord or a tenant, under this Bill, I venient manner, for the purpose of af- should not hesitate for an instant in fording means of livelihood to the sur- taking the position of the tenant. plus population, would be as wise as to cannot conceive what is to induce people require that machinery and all the to become owners of land under this modern improvements of science should Bill which you have brought forward. be banished from our manufactories to But, at the same time, I am not indisgive employment to the surplus popula- posed to give a fair trial to the experition in our towns. But with regard to ment of the right hon. Gentleman. Still reclamation of land and migration to I must remind the House that it is a those parts of Ireland, I may say that great experiment, and I cannot share nothing was more strongly urged by his sanguine expectations as to the rewitnesses before the Agricultural Com- sult. I am not speaking now of the enor mission, who, I believe, were thoroughly mous liabilities and risks you are about competent to give evidence and form to impose on the taxpayers of the country.

Mr. Chaplin

I

And remember that is a subject in itself | home. It is an entire mistake to supof importance that cannot be overrated. pose that there is no peasant proprieWhat you are going to do is this-you tary in England. In the county I are going to make the State the chief represent there are hundreds-thousands and greatest landlord in Ireland, at a of freeholders and peasant proprietors at time when the whole institution of land- the present time. Vast tracts of country, lordism is being violently denounced and vast areas of land-I am not speaking assailed. But I am looking more to its solely of the Isle of Axholme; but on future effects on the condition of the the East Coast of Lincolnshire, between people and the fertility of the land it- the Humber and the Wash, you will self; and I should like to ask the right find vast tracts of country peopled, to a hon.Gentleman what precedence and what great extent, if not exclusively, by them. experience has he for his guidance? I And I have seen, and I know something was disappointed with the speech of the of the lot of these people for myself, and right hon. Gentleman the other night. I will say at once, from my experience He told us, from despatches he quoted, of them, that a more exemplary and that vast numbers of the serfs in Russia industrious, a more deserving and hardhad been converted into owners of the working class does not exist in England. soil, and that a large proportion had I wish to Heaven I could say the same repaid the money they borrowed to of their prosperity. But, alas! with re-purchase the land. But why did he them, Sir, at the present time, prosnot say something of their condition perity and comfort are unknown; their at the present time? Was he ignorant work is harder and their fare is worse of their condition, or was it that he knew than that of any labouring man in Engthat a statement of their condition would land. But, notwithstanding this, and tell against his proposals? I was read-all their efforts, and all their admirable ing a remarkable article the other day bearing on this question. It gives a description of the Russian serfs now owners of the land in Russia, well worthy the attention of the House, and what it says is this

"From one end of the country to the other the so-called peasant proprietors "that Radical ideal of the agrarian status-"are in a state of semi-starvation; while in several of the Volga Provinces, once the richest in agricultural pro

duce, the starvation has assumed the form of a widespread famine which the Government is engaged in alleviating by considerable grants of money. This calamity has not overtaken the country casually and without warning. It has been approaching systematically for the last 10 years, and cannot be ascribed in any important degree to the simple visitation of God or the operation of abnormal climatic phe

nomena."

Well, now, Sir, the evidence given with regard to the purchase of land in Ireland under the "Bright Clauses," as they were called, or from the Church lands, is of a most conflicting character; but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he looks to any other foreign countries and the systems that prevail there? If he does, all I can say is this-that the evidence that it has been the duty of the Agricultural Commission to take on this point does not warrant that conclusion, but rather the reverse. But it is not necessary to look abroad at all. We have experience much nearer

conduct, many of them-aye, far too many of them, for they are a class that I should wish to see increased-have been utterly undone by an unhappy combination of unfavourable seasons and the relentless foreign competition. which for some years now they have been called upon to undergo. The complaint of even those who have been able to bring them to maturity is this-that their crops make nothing, and that ruin stares them in the face; and their lot is harder far than that of either labourer or tenant for another reason too, which I commend to hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway, who are always ready to denounce and to declaim against the territorial system of this country; and it is this-you may rest assured that the mortgagee at all times will demand the punctual payment of his interest far more sternly than the landlord ever does, or, in unfavourable seasons, ever did demand the punctual payment of his rent. In this distressing and deplorable state of affairs, the land is steadily losing its fertility, and, pari passu with its owners, is going rapidly from bad to bad, and from worse to worse. And if this is what is happening in England, why are you to expect such a very different and so much more favourable result in Ireland? The fact is, and I often think it is the irony of fate, that it is [Eighth Night.]

2 E 2

por

the right hon. Gentleman himself, more | to what I have called the proprietary than any other man in England, who clauses of the Bill, I go heartily and has rendered a successful peasant pro- completely with the Government, perprietary, as I believe, in this country haps I go further than the Government, impossible in future. There were yeo- in what I take to be the remedial men, and there were peasants too, who tion of the measure, and specially inflourished at one time in considerable tended to deal with that which the right numbers in this country; but they have hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister disappeared in a great degree, and much himself has described as the old and to my regret, as I regard the class of rooted evil of land hunger in the yeomen as a class we can ill afford to country. But when I come to what I lose, and one that it will be still more have described as the confiscation clauses difficult to replace. But they have dis- of the Bill, there, I am afraid, I must appeared and died out in a great degree, adopt a very different attitude indeed. and they did so, for the most part, with I am quite aware that hon. Members on the advent of Free Trade. Now, I am that side of the House are sometimes not going to say one word about Free apt to be indifferent to charges of conTrade to-night. It may be a very good fiscation, especially when made by hon. thing in its way; no doubt it has been, Members on this side. But that is not and a peasant proprietary may be the the case with the right hon. Gentleman same. No doubt, they are both of them the Prime Minister. He takes quite a excellent things in their way; but you different line. He stoutly denied the may depend upon this-that, under ex- other night that there was any confiscation isting commercial conditions, the two under the Act of 1870, and he has chalthings cannot flourish in England to- lenged us to prove that there is confiscation gether. And, as I suppose the right in the Bill of 1881. And, further, he sup hon. Gentleman is not at present pre- ported his statement as to the Act of pared to part with Free Trade, or to 1870 by alleging that, according to staoccupy that suite of apartments in tistics, rents have risen, and with the certain public establishments in this rise of rents the value of property which country, which he is always ready, I has been sold in Ireland has been inobserve, to offer to those of his Friends creased since the passing of the Act of who make that proposal, I am afraid 1870. Now, even supposing that allethat he must give up for the present his gation is correct, it does not necessarily dream of a peasant proprietary in Ire- prove that he is right. It is the natural land. That, however, is only my opinion. tendency of everything in these days, I do not presume to dogmatize upon it, as years roll by, to increase in value, nor to offer more or less, perhaps, crude because gold has been daily becoming opinions of my own, to the views of the more plentiful; and what we have to right hon. Gentleman, who, I under- consider is, not whether land in Ireland stand, has made a life-long study of this has increased at all in value within the last question; but I have ventured, and, in- decade, but whether the increase would deed, I have thought it my duty to place not have been considerably greater if this view of the case, which I have seen it had not been for the passing of the something of myself, before the House Land Act 11 years ago. That is supof Commons, because it does seem to me posing this allegation is correct. But to be one that is deserving of our most is the right hon. Gentleman correct? careful and serious consideration before The right hon. Gentleman gave us no we finally adopt proposals of enormous statistics the other night; but he did importance like those which have been give us some last Session, I remember, put forward by the right hon. Gentle- in regard to this question. They stopped, man. At the same time, although I however, with the year 1878. Why did cannot share his sanguine views, and they stop there? Why has he not while I must decline all responsibility given us statistics down to the year for them, I should not feel either jus- 1881? They would have thrown contified or right in refusing, at all events, siderable light on his assertions. I a fair trial of his scheme. Sir, the have not myself been able to obtain House, then, will perceive that while I statistics for 1881; I have not had time am prepared to give a qualified assent to do so. I had no idea, for a moment,

Mr. Chaplin

"Lot 1, 563 acres; yearly rent £180; sale adjourned, there being no bidding."

Lot 3, 42 acres; yearly rent £85; the only bid £500; sale adjourned."

that such an argument would be ad- tion. Does or does not the Bill perform vanced; but it so happens that I have that operation? I think I can undersome statistics that were sent to me take to show in the course of about from Ireland last Session in regard to three minutes that it does. Take the the year 1880, and I will read three case of present tenancies alone, where cases which bear directly on the value tenant right did not exist before. What of land. They are taken from sales in happens under this Bill? The day this the Land Court, before Judge Flana. Bill passes, every tenant will be able to gan, and the date is June 25, 1880- take his landlord into Court, and, whenot quite a year ago— ther his rent be a high rent or a low rent, to call upon the Court to fix it in future. If the tenant once goes into Court, the Court is bound to fix the rent, and it becomes in future, in the language of the Bill, a "judicial rent." Thereupon, a judicial rent being established in that way, the farm from that time forth is held subject to what are called the "statutory conditions" of the Bill. These "statutory conditions" really include fixity of tenure for 15 years for certain, and a renewal of fixity of tenure for successive periods of 15 years as long as the tenant may desire. It may be described without exaggeration as being really an actual fixity of tenure if the tenant so desires. But " fixity of tenure," in the words of the Prime Minister in 1870, is virtually the "expropriation of the landlord! It undoubtedly deprives him at once of all real control and management over his estate in future, and it deprives him of all what may be called the advantages and pleasures of ownership. It deprives him, in a word, of nearly every right you can mention that attaches to the possession of an estate in Ireland, excepting the receipt of whatever rentcharge the Court may think fit to allow him. Now, nobody can deny that these rights do possess a certain value, whether they be little or whether they be great, and you are going to take them from the landlord without giving him the smallest compensation whatever. I say, then, that if my definition of confiscation be correct, the fixity of tenure, as embodied in your Bill, even for a period of 15 years, is neither more nor less than sheer and simple confiscation. And that is not all. Every tenant in future will have the right to sell his interest in his holding for the best price he can obtain, subject, I admit, to this limitation, which the Prime Minister pointed out the other night-that the landlord may claim his right of pre-emption; and in [Eighth Night.]

"Lot 4, 387 acres of the lands of Molloy, producing a yearly rent of £156 9s.; Mr. T McCreedy, solicitor, offered £2,000. There was no other bid; and after waiting for some time, Judge Flanagan said-It is a perfect farce to be putting property up for sale now. For all I know, Mr. McCreedy, you may get it for half £2,000 next year. No mortal man can tell. Your bidding, however, is not quite 12 years' purchase.'' Now, Sir, I do not know what the statistics of 1881 may say; but if they at all bear out the records of sales in the Land Court in the year before, I think the House will agree with me that the right hon. Gentleman has certainly not disproved the charge of confiscation against the Act of 1870 by the singularly unfortunate illustration he has selected upon this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman challenged us to give him proof of confiscation in the Bill which is now before us. Perhaps I may be allowed to offer to the House a short and simple definition of what I mean by "confiscation;" and if the House accepts my definition, and if I am able to show, as I think I shall be able to show, that it is strictly applicable to this part of the Bill, I may at least hope that some hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite will do me the favour to attempt, at all events, to meet the arguments I shall use, and, failing that, to acknowledge the truth and justice of my position. Now, what does "confiscation" mean? I understand confiscation to mean this-we are guilty of confiscation if we take away property or valuable rights, which at present they enjoy, from those who are entitled to them, without making compensation to them for the property or the rights of which they are deprived. Will any hon. Member on the other side of the House deny that proposition? If not, then I wish to ask the House this ques