§ MR. M'MAHON (for Mr. M'CARTHY DOWNING)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware of steps having been taken by one of the largest Proprietors of Land in Ireland, to induce or coerce many of his tenants to enter into contracts in writing, by virtue of which they would not be entitled to make any claim for compensation under any provision of the "Irish Land Act of 1870;" and, whether he is aware that decisions have been made that a tenant who, after his tenancy had been determined by a notice to quit, entered into new terms pursuant to the proviso in the 18th Section, thereby forfeited all claim to the improvements made by him previously to the new tenancy; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to apply to Parliament to amend the Act, by repealing the 12th Clause, and otherwise as may be necessary?
MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, that this was a question of some intricacy, and upon which a good deal depended with regard to the satisfactory working of a most important law, and he greatly regretted that the lion. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) was not in his place to put the Question, because he would rather have said in his presence what he felt compelled to say in his absence respecting the former part of his Question. He was greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Cork for the manner in which he had exercised the influence he possessed at the time of the discussion on the passing of the Irish Land Act, and he also conceived that the Irish Members had contributed 835 a great deal to the acceptance of that measure. But these circumstances made him regret very much that the hon. Member should consider the conduct of a particular landlord in Ireland, who was one of the most respected landlords in Ireland, a fitting subject for inquiry in that House. No one could think that the landlord in question had gone beyond either the letter or the spirit of the discretion which had been intrusted to him by the Act. He should have been loath to answer the question with regard to the Duke of Leinster had it not been that he had received from his son, Lord Kildare, by telegram, a short statement of the facts, which he thought he had better read to the House, with only one or two verbal changes, which he thought would make the matter more intelligible. It was as follows:—
No tenant has been requested to sign a new agreement, except when the old one had expired or a new valuation was necessary. No tenant has been debarred from compensation where the holding was under £50 valuation; nor, in the case of large farms, has any tenant been excluded from compensation"—that was to say, had been excluded from prospective compensation—under the new agreements for improvements made with the landlord's consent;the landlord's consent was prospectively required with regard to certain leases about to be made of holdings above £50 per annum.No tenant has been debarred from compensation where the holding was under £50 per annum for improvements effected before the signing of the new agreement, to which he would have been otherwise entitled, in the very few instances where such improvements have been made by the tenant.And he might add, that he had been informed that upon the extensive property in question there were only about five or six cases where any comment had been made; and of those five or six cases, if he was rightly informed, and he ought to be rightly informed, all excepting one had concluded the new leases, and the other was still pending, not upon the question of the terms of the tenancy under the Act generally, but upon the question of the amount of the rent. So much for the particular circumstances of that case. With regard to the principle upon which the Act proceeded, he might remind the hon. Gentleman that in the discussions in that 836 House on the Irish Land Act they had arrived at the conclusion that for many important questions the line ought to be drawn at £50 rental; that under £50 rental certain claims should exist, and that the tenant should not be permitted to contract himself out of the Act, because the House did not think that he had sufficient independence to enable him to contract fairly with his landlord. But above that line the House thought that the tenant was able to hold his own against his landlord. What had been done in the cases referred to by the hon. Member for Cork was within the letter and spirit of the Act. Then as regarded the second part of the hon. Member's Question, he did not think that it would be convenient for the House that he should enter into a discussion as to the exact nature and effect of the judgments that had been given. Suffice it to say that two views had been taken, and that the Act as it stood did not correspond with either extreme view. He believed he was right in saying that in "another place" an attempt had been made to amend the Act by introducing provisions to validate any contract whatever, irrespective of the nature and extent of the holding, to exclude all claims on the part of the tenants for compensation for disturbance. If he understood the view taken by his hon. Friend, he advocated, on the contrary, that whatever might be the nature of the holding, no man should be permitted to make a contract excluding his right to make a claim for compensation for disturbance. The Act did not concur with either of those extreme views. It drew a certain line, and there was no reason to believe that that line had worked unsatisfactorily; and therefore he could say very distinctly that it was not the intention of the Government, as at present advised, to apply to Parliament to amend the Act by repealing the 12th clause of the statute. It would be exceedingly mischievous if any doubts were to exist as to the intentions of the Government on the subject. The Government did not intend to propose themselves, nor would they regard favourably any proposal from others, for amending the Act in accordance either with the views of the hon. Member, or with those in an opposite sense which had been expressed elsewhere.