MR. GLADSTONEIt now becomes my duty to move a new clause of a character which I may describe as not unimportant, but in some degree formal. It is a clause for the purpose of bringing the pecuniary transactions of the Land Commission in Ireland under the regular review of the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Exchequer. About the beneficial character of the proposal there can be no doubt whatever, and there is only a single remark I ought to add. It is thought by the Executive Government that some distinction may properly be drawn between the kind of control and extent of discretion exercised by the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Exchequer in the case of the ordinary public expenditure through the Executive Government, and the discretion it 1626 is needful for it to exercise in the case of a body external to the Executive Government having received the confidence of Parliament under an Act of the legislature, and called upon to administer funds for a special purpose under clear and specific rules. We assume the general intentions and the general discretion of a Commission of that kind. With respect to the ordinary public expenditure, the Department of the Audit Office exercises very large powers and very beneficial powers of examining more than what is purely formal; but in the case of an expenditure of the kind here in view, we are generally of opinion that what the auditor will have to do will be not to touch matters affecting the merits, but to look simply to the remedial character of the acts the Commission may perform, and to see that they correspond with the Act of Parliament. This is not a matter which requires any detailed explanation; but it is a distinction which, to a certain extent, is not entirely without importance. It rests upon the principle that while as regards the Executive Government it is impossible to have too close and too severe a control over the expenditure of public money, still, in a case like this, it would not be right for either the Treasury or the Audit Department to interfere with the discretion or the policy of the Commission in dealing with the funds placed under their management by this Bill. I beg to move the second reading of the clause.
§ New Clause—
§ (Audit of account of Land Commission.)
§ "The Land Commission shall from time to time prepare in such form and at such times as the Treasury from time to time direct accounts of their receipts and expenditure, and within six months after the expiration of the year to which the accounts relate the Land Commission shall transmit the same to the Controller and Auditor General to be audited, certified, and reported upon in conformity with the regulations from time to time made by the Treasury for that purpose, and the accounts, with the reports of the Controller and Auditor General thereon, shall be laid before the House of Commons not later than three months after the date on which they were transmitted for audit if Parliament be then sitting, and, if not sitting, within fourteen days after Parliament next assembles.
§ "Provided, That the regulations made by the Treasury under this section shall be laid before the House of Commons within one month of the date thereof, if Parliament be then sitting, and, if not, then within fourteen days after 1627 Parliament next assembles, and that such regulations shall not have effect until they have lain for thirty days upon the Table of the House."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Clause be read a second time."
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFremarked, that he had not yet said anything upon the Bill; but upon a question of account he should like to know if the Treasury could not be instructed, either by words inserted in the clause, or by an undertaking on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, to keep a separate account of the advances made by the Church Commissioners in respect of arrears of rent. It appeared to him that there was likely to be a great complication of accounts between the Church Commission and the new Commission; and, therefore, he should like to see a provision made for keeping the accounts separate.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHBefore the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, I wish to point out that the clause proposed to be inserted in this Bill is not precisely the same as the clause inserted in the Church Act. I believe there is a marked difference between them. I understand the view of the right hon. Gentleman to be that it is not the intention of the Government that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall express any opinion upon a question of policy; but that he shall simply investigate the application of the funds to be administered under the clauses of the Bill and see whether it has been in accordance with the strict letter of the Act of Parliament. All interpretations as to the policy of the application of the funds are, I understand, to rest with the Commissioners. I think it is desirable to bring out that question very plainly, because there is a certain amount of legal doubt about it, and it should be clearly stated what the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General are. I therefore wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I rightly understand him to say that the discretion of the Commission in dealing with these funds will be completely unfettered?
MR. GLADSTONEThe right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) has per- 1628 fectly understood the meaning of my statement. There will be nothing less than a full legal audit; but we are inclined to lay down that where the Executive Government is concerned we ought not to check or narrow the interference with the expenditure where the question concerned is one of discretion and one of merits. With regard to the remarks which have been made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), I entirely agree with him that the account to which he refers should be kept distinct from the rest.
§ MR. WARTONasked over what period of the year the accounts would range? Would it be the natural year, the financial year, or some other year?
MR. GLADSTONEThat will have to be settled hereafter by the Treasury. As a matter of convenience I think it will most probably be the natural year; but we must abide by circumstances.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Clause read a second time, and ordered to be added to the Bill.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEmoved, after Clause 1, to insert the following Clause:—
§ (Provisions with respect to sale of tenancy of holding subject to arrears of rent, &c.)
§ "Where the tenant of any holding, who is indebted to his landlord on account of arrears of rent or other claims on the part of his landlord, gives the prescribed notice to the landlord of his intention to sell his tenancy, the landlord may, without prejudice to any other right by this Act conferred, give the prescribed notice to the tenant of his intention to become the purchaser of the tenancy in case the tenant cannot find a purchaser willing and able to pay, by way of consideration, for the purchase of the tenancy, a sum sufficient to satisfy the amount of the tenant's indebtedness to the landlord on account of the arrears of rent and such other claims as aforesaid, such amount failing agreement between the landlord and tenant to be determined by the Court; and, in case the tenant cannot, within the prescribed period, find a purchaser willing and able to pay a sum sufficient to satisfy such amount as aforesaid, the landlord shall thereupon be deemed to be the purchaser for a sum equal to such amount as aforesaid."
§ The clause really spoke for itself. He quite admitted that it dealt with a point which ought to have been raised at the time Clause 1 was under discussion. Under Clause 1, when the landlord did not desire to purchase the tenant's interest and there were arrears, the landlord would be entitled, until the arrears were 1629 paid, not to accept the purchaser of the tenant right as the incoming tenant. The object he had in view in proposing this new clause was to protect the landlord where the sum proposed to be paid by the purchaser was not sufficient to cover the tenant's arrears of rent. It was not right that the landlord should suffer because he had been lenient and easy. He did not mean to say that it was the best way of meeting the difficulty; but he would move the second reading of the clause.
§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."—(Mr. R. Stanhope.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he was of opinion that the object the hon. Gentleman had in view was sufficiently provided for by the Bill as it stood. It already provided that the landlord, upon getting notice from the tenant of his intention to sell the holding, could apply to the Court. If the landlord desired to buy the tenant's interest he could do so at a fair price, and he could not complain if it was less than the amount to which his arrears of rent extended. The Court was bound to ascertain what was the true value of the property, and no harm could be done. On the other hand, if he liked to secure himself he could bid up to the price to which his accumulation of arrears had run. That was the present practice where a person had an incumbrance on property sold by a Court.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the view of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would be perfectly right if the tenant was going to sell by auction, because the landlord might then come in and bid against anybody else. But an arrangement might be made in secret of which he knew nothing, and the sum given might not be sufficient to cover his arrears. He would not, however, press the clause; but he thought some words might be introduced into the 1st clause on the Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1630§ (Release to tenant who has sold his tenancy.)
§ "A tenant who has sold his tenancy in pursuance of the provisions of the first section shall be deemed to be thereupon released and discharged from all actions, suits, and remedies at the suit of the landlord and all persons claiming by, through, or under him, in respect of all rent subsequently accruing due under such tenancy, and in respect of all future breaches of the conditions thereof."
§ The position of the tenant was this—At the present time, under the existing law, if a man assigned his tenancy, he was responsible to the landlord and his heirs for 50 generations or more, not merely for the rent of the holding if the assignee should make default, but for any breach of the conditions of the lease on the part of the assignee. Perhaps it was right that such provisions should exist under the present law, because there might be a lease with onerous conditions in it, which conditions might be got rid of by making an assignment to a man of straw; and it might, therefore, be right to give the landlord the power of coming down upon the man who had been the original lessor. But what did this clause do? In cases of assignment, it imposed upon the tenant a series of most onerous conditions—it required him to give notice to the landlord of his intention to sell the tenancy; where the tenant agreed to sell the tenancy to some other person than the landlord, he should, upon informing the landlord of the name of the purchaser, state therewith the consideration agreed to be given for the tenancy; where the tenancy was sold to some other person than the landlord, the landlord might, within the prescribed period, refuse on reasonable grounds to accept the purchaser as tenant; and so on through a whole series of most onerous and extraordinary conditions, none of which had existed before. As he had said, there was at present a necessity for protecting the landlord, in case the tenant assigned the holding to a man of straw; but the circumstances would be entirely different under the new conditions, and he proposed that a provision should be inserted in the Bill acquitting the original tenant in consequence of the extraordinary conditions now imposed upon him. It was useless to argue that the existing rights should be allowed to continue, because the Court would take care that no assignment was made to a man of straw. The 1631 Court would allow no fraudulent transaction to take place, and no improper bargain to be entered into. He knew it was generally thought in Ireland that the Decies Act met the case; but in his opinion it did not. Decies Act, it was quite true, would meet the case where the landlord's consent had been obtained in writing; but what landlord would be such a fool as to give his consent in writing? He would not be damnified by withholding where it would be no advantage to him to give it. He would have the right, as well as coming on the existing tenant for his rent, to come also on all the assignees. Therefore, it was useless to argue that Decies Act covered the case, because it did nothing of the kind. The landlord had an abundance of guarantees, and when the Bill made an inroad into the right of free sale, as it did—because it was absurd to say that it gave the right of free sale—the least they could ask the Government to do, when they had abolished the Common Law right of free sale, was to abolish also the Common Law right which gave the landlord the power to come on the assignees for all generations.
§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. FINDLATERsaid, the hon. Member was under a misapprehension. He never understood that the assignees were reponsible after the tenancy had been assigned.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that under this Bill hon. Members would remember that a tenant meant an occupying tenant, and when once a man ceased to occupy he ceased to be a tenant within the meaning of the Act. The whole of the obligations of Clause 4 were imposed upon a tenant in occupation. For tenancies from year to year the clause was not at all required. The only class for which it was required were future leaseholders; but he thought that the Act of 1860, in their case, made ample provision. A landowner agreed very often to let land to some particular person because he was solvent; and the man who took the lease contracted, not only for himself, but for his assignees, that they would pay the rent and fulfil the 1632 other obligations of the tenancy. In such a case, where the tenant deliberately contracted, not only for himself, but for the assignees, the landlord should not be deprived of this security without his consent, and if he consented the Act of 1860 relieved the original tenant from all further liability. Whether they regarded the class of future leaseholders or existing tenancies from year to year they were all alike, adequately protected.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he was not thinking of that which the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) had directed attention to; but he had in his mind statutory tenancies. He must admit that the Attorney General for Ireland had cleared up any doubt he might have had on the subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had shown that the statutory tenant who succeeded to a tenancy would be responsible; and, if that were so, there was no reason to move the Amendment. His object had been to save a statutory tenant from responsibility, which, he thought, ought not to attach to him.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. FITZPATRICKmoved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new Clause:—
§ (Payments to be made to landlords out of purchase money of tenancy in certain cases.)
§ "Where the tenancy of a holding created before the passing of this Act is sold by the tenant for the first time after the passing of this Act, the landlord shall be entitled to apply to the Court to have paid to him out of the purchase moneys of the tenancy, the sum, if any, which he can prove to the satisfaction of the Court to have been paid by him or his predecessors in title by way of consideration for the purchase or acquisition of any right of sale of the tenant's interest in such holding; subject nevertheless to any deduction which the Court may deem just in respect of any money received by the landlord or his predecessors in title by way of fine or otherwise on account of the sum so paid as aforesaid."
§
The hon. Gentleman said that, in moving this clause, he must explain to the Committee why he had left that which was a very important matter until so late a date in the progress of the Bill. He had waited throughout all the discussions that had taken place in order to hear what the Prime Minister was going to say about those landlords who, on the second reading, he had said had been put upon their trial, but had been ac-
1633
quitted. He confessed, however, that he had waited in vain. He had heard nothing as to what was to be done for those landlords who had done their duty by their tenants and their property, and had brought the holdings in their possession into a flourishing condition. By the clause that he now brought before the Committee he dealt only with the estates where the Ulster Custom had been bought up by the landlords, or where the landlords themselves, by cash payments to the outgoing tenants, had obviated the necessity of the incoming tenants giving anything to their predecessors, either for the improvements they had effected, or for what was called "tenant right"—that right which the Committee were told had existed from time immemorial throughout Ireland. The Government had said that by the Act of 1870 they inadvertently created "a something" which the tenant had to sell. Well, that might propably be so. He did not contest the proposition; but, so far as he could see, that "something" did not seem to be more than the compensation for disturbance, which was to be given to a tenant if he were capriciously evicted, and where hardship was done. By the present Bill they would be actually giving the tenant "something" to sell, which he had never bought, and which he had never acquired. What this "something" was, therefore, he could not make out, especially if the landlord, as he had said, had done everything to enable the incoming tenant to come on to the farm with capital intact, and had put the farm in order. By the Bill they told the tenant to go into the open market, and they said to him—"You can get for this 'something' the best price that is possible." He was to sell the pretium moderationis of a good landlord, who had permitted him to remain on his holding. They asked him to sell the consideration the landlord had shown in leaving him on the land and giving him all the improvements and amenities granted on what were, in common parlance, called "live-and-let-live estates." He wished to point out, to the best of his ability, what this "something," which the tenant was now to sell for the best price, really was. He would quote from a pamphlet by the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan), published in 1869—a very short pamphlet, which put the thing very clearly. The writer
1634
gave an account of an expedition that he had taken through Ireland, and he called his pamphlet Land Culture and Land Tenure in Ireland. The writer said—
The amount given for the goodwill depends on this circumstance; it depends upon the character of the landlord. If he and his family have been considerate to the tenants, and have shown no disposition to raise their rents, he is considered a good landlord, and a larger sum will be given for the goodwill on his estate. Thus the tenants trade on the character of their landlords.
Then he says—
It depends on the rent. The lower the rent the more is given for the goodwill, and vice versâ.
The writer then went into a discussion, showing how the rent and goodwill acted against each other. That was a good description of this "something" that they were told the tenant had to sell for the best price he could get. He was willing to admit that where tenant right was accepted in the South of Ireland the tenant was entitled to receive from the incoming occupier, or the landlord, what he had paid; and, if they had a legalized tenant right in the South of Ireland, that would be fair. But he could not see the equity of allowing a tenant to sell what he had not bought, and to receive large cash payments for this consideration, that he had been living under a good landlord and receiving all these amenities. To illustrate what he meant much more plainly in pounds, shillings, and pence, he would take a typical case—the case of an estate with which he was most familar, that of his father (Lord Castletown). On that estate no tenant right had existed. The proprietor had spent upwards of £16,000 in paying tenants who went out for the improvements they had made; and also in giving them a sum of money, whether large or small, to enable them to emigrate, so that an incoming tenant might not be able to say—"I have paid so much for this and you must give it to me when I leave, or I shall have to get it from the man who follows me." The incoming tenant came on the farm with his capital untouched, and the farms were nearly all let at low rents, which had not been changed for 20 years. Lord Castletown had spent—25,000 on improvements, for which he had received no interest. No tenant right had existed on the estate, these
1635
large sums having been spent in keeping it out; and he wished to know what would be the result to this landlord and the landlords of his class—and there were more of them in Ireland than some people were inclined to think—if the Bill passed in its present shape? The result would be that, first of all, where the estate was well managed, the landlord was popular, and the rent was low, the tenant right would be exorbitantly high. And those tenants who were able to get their sons and relatives on to a farm on the estate without paying for it would now have to pay a huge sum down to a man who was a bankrupt or was obliged to leave. What would be the result to the tenantry on the estate he had been speaking of? Hitherto they had had no capital taken out of their pockets; but now when a tenant came in he would have to pay to the man going out, who was probably a drunkard or a spendthrift, and was off to America, a good round sum. This money the disreputable predecessor would put into his pocket and spend elsewhere. He would give the Committee an instance. He knew a case where a family had been for a long time on an estate. A member of that family came into possession of the farm only two years ago, and was given a sum of money to enable him to develop his holding. The result, unfortunately, was that he became a drunkard, and spent everything he had without improving the property; and, naturally, when this Bill passed, he would sell his tenant right for an exorbitant sum and take himself away. But what had he got to sell? When he had taken the farm it was in perfect order. The sum he would receive for the tenant right would benefit nobody but himself, and why would he be benefited? Simply because he was a drunkard. The incoming tenant following him would have to pay an enormous sum for that which last year he could have got for nothing. That would show the difficulty that would be experienced in working the Act, unless such a clause as this he proposed were accepted. The Bill, as it stood, would be a premium to spendthrift tenants, who, after failing in their agricultural industry, would be able to say—"I am tired of this. I can make a good sum out of my tenant right, and I shall be off with it to America." The clause he proposed merely said that the landlord should receive back what he
1636
had paid in order to keep out the tenant right. By agreeing to his proposal on the first sale they would give incalculable benefit to the tenantry on many estates, and, at the same time, would tell the landlords of Ireland who had tried to do their duty—"We are not going to deprive you of the capital you have invested in your land." He need not point out how unfair it would be to make a landlord pay twice over for the tenant right if he wished to exercise the right of pre-emption. They should not make him pay, perhaps, next year for what he had paid this year or last year. He was told that there were hundreds and hundreds of cases where the tenant right had been bought up. He had safeguarded also any case where a fine had been paid by the tenant to the landlord in creating the tenant right, because, of course, as no doubt the Attorney General for Ireland was aware, in the South and West of Ireland, where tenant right had been created, it was often created by the payment of a fine to the landlord at the time he was hard pressed, or by the payment of a sum to some unscrupulous agent, who had said—"Give me so much and I will sell you an interest, and will make it right with the landlord." The subject was a very important one, and he could assure the Government that if they could see their way to agreeing to what he had suggested, they would go far towards helping the people of Ireland to look upon this Bill in a more complacent frame of mind than they did now, because they would be putting the honest tenant on a fair footing, and showing him plainly what he had to sell. It would do a great deal towards facilitating the working of the clause in a great many particulars, which would take him too long to explain.
§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. GLADSTONEI think, with great submission, that it will not be difficult to show that this clause is proposed upon a misunderstanding of the facts of the case and the position of the parties. Great difficulty has been professed on the other side of the House, and, I have not the least doubt, honestly professed, in understanding what it is 1637 the tenant has to sell. It has been described under all sorts of mysterious phrases as being impenetrable and unintelligible, and from that unintelligibility, which I will suppose to be the fact, inasmuch as hon. Gentlemen are the best judges of what they do and what they do not understand, I think they have been led into consequences which might be ruinous to the Bill. We, on our side, have always contended that the tenant right was a thing that it was not at all difficult to comprehend. We have always contended that it is a commodity the tenant carries into the market, and for which people are ready to give him money—that it is principally based on the improvements which he and his predecessors in title have made on the farm; but that over and above that he has to sell his right of occupancy. His right of occupancy depends, partly on the particular conditions named and attached to that right by the law of the land, and partly by the state of the market—the demand for land as compared with the supply. Well, how do these considerations apply to the clause of the hon. Gentleman? Let me first say that he certainly deserves credit for his moderation in limiting the operation of his clause to the first sale after the passing of this Act. I am not at all aware why it should not be made a permanent provision extending to all sales, if it be good at all in principle. But I contend it is not good in principle; it is unsound. Accepting the facts as they have been given me by the hon. Gentleman, I cannot at all enter into the question whether these cases are few or many, for that is really irrelevant to this particular discussion. The supposition of the hon. Gentleman, which I receive in perfect good faith, is that in certain cases the landlord has paid to an outgoing tenant a certain sum in respect of his tenancy, so that the man who is coming in may have no claim whatever in regard to something which he had paid to the tenant. Very well, be that so. What is the consequence? The consequence of that proceeding is to make all the improvements on the farm the property of the landlord. There can be no doubt at all about that; if so, unquestionably the incoming tenant has no interest whatever in the holding. He has no right to sell these improvements—they are the landlord's, as much so as if they 1638 had originally been made by the landlord; and in ordinary circumstances it is the sale of the improvements that constitutes the basis and bulk of that interest in the tenancy which the tenant has got to sell. Of course, there are other things which must be taken in view. First of all, they must take into view the improvements the incoming tenant might make; and, secondly, the value of his right of occupancy. In the case to which the hon. Member has referred, where a particular man was, unfortunately for himself, a drunkard, we may assume that he would make no improvements on the holding; but, at the same time, he has got the occupancy. You have him on the farm invested with his tenancy; but that will not enable him to get in the market such a price as he would have obtained if the improvements had been his. There is no reason why, if his right of occupancy is of real value—and we will not go into a discussion of the constituent parts that comprise the occupancy—there is no reason why he should not receive the price. Let us look at the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. Suppose the improvements on a farm to be worth £200, and the landlord has paid £200 to the outgoing tenant for these improvements. They have become his property. The incoming tenant takes no interest in them whatever, and, consequently, cannot sell the interest in them, and the presumption is that he pays rent for them. He has an interest in them, but cannot sell them, or convey them. Surely that will operate unfairly. No doubt, the hon. Member has brought in the clause in perfect integrity; but I do not think I shall be exaggerating if I say that, under all the circumstances of the case, it would operate unjustly.
§ MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, that in the case the right hon. Gentleman had quoted, where £200 had been spent in improvements, in all probability the price paid for the tenant right would be £500; the other £300 would represent the goodwill, which seemed to be a synonym for his right of occupancy. Under the Act of 1870 tenants were invited to purchase the tenant right. He would ask now, under this Bill, and under the interpretation that the Prime Minister had put on it, what it was that the landlord did buy? He had bought 1639 the improvements; but he did not purchase beyond that, although he paid for something beyond it. The 1st clause of the present Bill only gave the tenantry of Ireland exactly the equivalent of the Ulster tenant right. They had the right of free sale, and they could sell both their improvements and their goodwill; and it was clear that anyone selling under the 1st clause would sell over again what the landlord had previously paid for. He should have preferred to have seen an exception made to the 1st clause of the Bill, and he could not see any logical reason for the distinction made by the Government when they said that where the tenant right was in the landlord's hands now it should be free from the conditions of the Bill; but where it had been parted with two or three years ago the case was different. The landlord had bought "something," and had the other parted with it? He did not think so; but the tenant was now to be allowed to sell the goodwill to the landlord that he had doubly paid for. The Prime Minister smiled, and perhaps he could not imagine why any landlord should have bought it. Probably no landlord would have bought it had he anticipated this Bill. There were many landlords who thought this competitive price given for the goodwill was an injury to the tenant and to the estate, and were willing to pay the money in order to protect the incoming tenant and prevent him from ruining himself. He was surprised that the Prime Minister did not see any difference between the first payment and the subsequent payments. It seemed to him that no argument could be more conclusive than that if the tenant sold something which had not been transferred to him by the landlord, whatever belonged to the landlord ought to be refunded.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he thought that the clause was unnecessary. If his hon. Friend would look to the Act of 1870 he would find a provision that where the landlord had purchased or acquired from the tenant the Ulster tenant right the holding ceased to be subject to the Ulster tenant right custom. The Ulster tenant right custom was nothing more or less than the Common Law right of assignment. It included the Common Law right of assignment with this difference— 1640 that the landlord, by the Common Law right of assignment, was not bound to recognize the assignee in connection with the tenancy, but under the Ulster Custom he was bound to do so. Therefore, if the tenant sold to the landlord the Common Law right of assignment which he possessed he had nothing whatever to sell. If the landlord had bought up the Ulster tenant right custom or analogous usage, and the interest came to be sold, the landlord could take documents into Court to prove that the tenant had sold him the right of assignment which he possessed.
§ MR. MACFARLANEsaid, the noble Lord had referred the Mover of this Amendment to the Act of 1870; but if he referred to the 1st clause of the Bill he would find that the case was fully met by the provision that where a tenant sold his tenancy to any person other than the landlord, the landlord might, at any time within the prescribed period, give notice both to the outgoing tenant and to the purchaser of any sums which he might claim from the outgoing tenant for arrears of rent or otherwise. Further, sub-section 9 provided that—
Where any purchase money had been paid into Court it shall be lawful for the landlord and also for the outgoing tenant and for the purchaser to make applications to the Court in respect of such purchase money.Now, if the landlord made application to the Court under that sub-section, surely it would be open to him to show that he had already purchased the tenant right which had been sold to the incoming tenant; and if that was so the landlord was absolutely protected from the second sale of a thing which he himself had purchased. He would not refer to the clause of the Act of 1870 quoted by the noble Lord; but, judging from the intelligent interest taken by the noble Lord in the provisions of the Bill, he felt sure he had taken a correct view of the subject. For his own part, upon the grounds he had stated, he must say there was no necessity for this Amendment.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONpointed out to the Prime Minister that unless he accepted some such provision as that contained in the Amendment before the Committee, the landlord, whenever he had bought up the tenant right, would be forced to apply to the Court under Clause 7 to have the rent raised. It 1641 was clear that if the landlord had bought up the tenant right of a holding and had not placed upon that holding an additional rent, the tenant, when he sold his interest in that holding, would sell the value of the tenant right which the landlord had bought up. The landlord, in order to protect himself, would be compelled to go to the Court to have the rent settled, regard being had to the interest of the landlord and tenant respectively. There could be no doubt that the interest of the landlord would be included in the tenant right bought up, and the landlord would be forced to apply to the Court to fix the highest rent for the holding. Now, he did not think it advisable to put the landlord in that dilemma. They had all along been told that the landlord might protect his interest by raising the rent; but that was the very thing which his hon. Friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) wanted to avoid. For his own part, he felt certain that unless some provision of the kind proposed by his hon. Friend were inserted in the Bill many landlords would be obliged to apply to the Court who otherwise would not do so.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not see the case in the same light as the noble Lord at all. Take the case put by the hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Fitzpatrick) by way of illustration. The landlord himself bought the interest of the tenant rather than allow it to be sold to others; he put a value on the improvements, and something more for any interest the tenant had. The landlord then got into possession of the holding, and having paid for the improvements they became his own; he could now do what he liked with the holding, but, not choosing to keep it unused, he transferred to another tenant the right of occupation which was formerly in the original tenant. If he did not change the rent, he had, it must be assumed, some good reason for it; but, presumably, he would let a new at a rent which would pay interest on his outlay as an investment, or, if he did not raise it, it would, no doubt, be because it was already a sufficient one, even giving the landlord credit for the improvements he had thus acquired.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that he had failed to recognize in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman 1642 the Attorney General for Ireland any reference to the comments of the noble Lord upon the existing law. He wished to know whether the clause of the Act of 1870, to which his noble Friend had alluded, was or was not affected by the 1st clause of the Bill?
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he should like to supplement the observation of the noble Lord who had just spoken by asking the Attorney General for Ireland the exact relation in which this Bill stood to the Act of 1870. The Government had repealed one section and partly repealed another; and he wished to know whether the 1st section of that Act remained in full force?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law)said, that the two Acts were to be read together. If the hon. Member referred to the 47th clause, he would see that it provided machinery for carrying out the Act of 1870.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he did not think that the point raised by his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) had been answered. Did the section on which his noble Friend founded himself apply to Clause 1 of this Bill?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, his right hon. and learned Friend had given his opinion as to the relation between the Act of 1870 and the Bill. The Government had quite enough to do to answer the questions of the noble Lord, without being led into devious paths by their renewal in differ ent forms.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he asked an extremely simple question, and did not want the Attorney General for Ireland to deviate into any paths at all. Was the section of the Act, to which his noble Friend referred, overruled by the 1st clause of this Bill?
§ MR. FITZPATRICKsaid, he had heard no answer at all to the arguments urged in favour of his proposal which had been put forward in the most moderate and temperate form; and he should, therefore, be obliged to put the Committee to the trouble of a division.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 210: Majority 132.—(Div. List, No. 324.)
1643§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had placed a clause on the Paper with the object, not of promoting any lengthy discussion, but of ascertaining exactly what were the rights of present tenants with regard to the continuity of their tenure. The clause which he intended to move declared that a present tenant had a continuous right of occupancy. He had been rather puzzled as to the word he should use to express that form of right; he dare not use the word "perpetuity;" and had, therefore, chosen the phrase "continuing right of occupancy." He left it to the Government to say whether the clause was unnecessary, or whether the proposition contained in it was untrue.
§ Amendment proposed, after Clause 2, insert new Clause—
§ (Continuity of tenure.)
§ "Every tenant in this Act described as a present tenant, and to whom all the provisions of the Act regarding present tenants apply, has a continuing right of occupancy in his holding, subject to the rent payable for the time being, or determined from time to time under the provisions of this Act, and to the other conditions in this Act prescribed."—(Sir George Campbell.)
§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy would not press this clause, as it was merely an expression of what he understood to be the effect of the Bill.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the clause was quite unnecessary, as the continuity of occupancy was already in the tenant subject to the provisions of the Bill.
§ Amendment negatived.
MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that as the clause of the Chief Secretary for Ireland with reference to agricultural labourers partly—but certainly not adequately—secured the object he had in view in placing the Amendment on the Paper which stood in his name, and as he was desirous at that stage of the Bill not to occupy the time of the Committee if it could be possibly avoided, he did not intend to move it.
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Wicklow County (Mr. W. J. Corbet) was inconsistent with Clauses 7 and 4 of the Bill, and could not, therefore, be put.
§ MR. R. POWERsaid, he was sorry the Government had not seen their way to deal with a great evil affecting Ireland. It appeared to him that in no period of the history of Ireland had the evil of absenteeism been felt more intensely by the people than during the last two or three years, when poverty, want, and misery came home to them in the most aggravated form. He had framed an Amendment in connection with this subject of the most moderate character, and submitted it in that shape in the hope that it would have some chance of being accepted by the Government. In considering this question it was, of course, necessary that some examination should be made of previous history and the various attempts that had been made to check the evil of absenteeism in Ireland; and it would be found that so far back as the Reign of Henry II. a most stringent Act was passed, which provided that all manner of persons whatsoever who had any lands or tenements in Ireland should reside or dwell upon the same, and that all such as had there any castles or other forts thereupon should also dwell therein, otherwise the Government might dispose of half their living. Such was the nature of the very stringent Act passed in the Reign of Henry II., and if they went forward a little further they would find that in the Reign of Richard II. it was enacted that all persons holding property in Ireland should reside there or else pay a tax to the amount of two-thirds of their Irish rental, and that all persons who attended English Universities, or were absent by special licence, were exempted from the penalties of the Act. That Act worked well for a time; but, unfortunately, the power so reserved to the Crown to grant leave of absence was exercised to such an extent that it became of little value for the purpose for which it was intended. In considering this question hon. Members should always bear in mind that one of the conditions on which these absentee proprietors received their property was that they should live on their estates and 1645 discharge the duties which they owed to the community at large. Again, hon. Members would find that the Irish Parliament was also alive to the evils which this system of absenteeism brought upon the country; and in 1715 a tax of 4s. in the pound was levied on all profits, employments, fees, and pensions derived from Ireland in all cases where the receiver did not reside in the country for six months in the year. It would be seen from these references to history that various attempts had been made to check the effects of absenteeism in Ireland. He was, of course, aware that his proposal would not receive the support of political economists; but he could never understand the principle which they laid down, that money which was derived from the soil of Ireland, and which was spent in other countries, operated quite as much for the good of Ireland as if it was spent there. On the contrary, in making these observations, he reminded the Committee that there was nothing wild or revolutionary in the ideas put forward by Irish Members on this subject, because they had good precedents for the course they advocated; and, moreover, their country bore witness to the evil effects of the system which they sought to remedy. But there was one argument in favour of such a course to which no disciple of political economy should refuse to listen, and that was the moral effect which absenteeism had upon the community at large. It was to the landlords that the people looked for encouragement in works of utility, which tended to the development of their resources, and to the establishment of peace and order; and he maintained that by the severance of the relations of the landlord and the tenant the doors of generosity, of mutual support, so necessary in the interest of both, would be closed between them. As a particular instance of the evils of absenteeism he would allude to a body of persons in the North of Ireland called the Irish Society, composed, as he believed, of the members of the Corporation of the City of London, and, with regard to them, he would not detain the Committee longer than by observing that the manner in which their estates were managed was not satisfactory. But he was obliged to remind hon. Members of a case brought into the Dublin Courts two years ago 1646 in connection with the Patriotic Life Assurance Company, and on which occasion the Judge said—
Could such a system exist were the landlord resident; where the landlord would have personal interviews with his tenants? But dealing with this Company, it was highly improbable that any one of the tenants would ever see a landlord in the flesh, as this Company were nonresident, and never came to Ireland to discharge there the duties which the owners of property owed it to the country to discharge.He would also refer to the recommendation of a Select Committee of that House, who sat in 1825, and who declared in their Report that in closing their labours, which had continued during three Sessions—Your Committee feel an earnest hope that the peculiar situation in which Dublin has been placed by the Union will not be lost sight of by the House. Prior to that event, 98 Peers, and a proportionate number of wealthy Commoners, inhabited the city. The effect of the Union has been the withdrawal from Dublin of many of those who were most likely to contribute most effectually to its opulence and its importance. The increase of the industrious and middle classes, so desirable under all circumstances, is checked by the exaggerated pressure of local taxation.That recommendation, like many other recommendations on Irish affairs, was treated, he regretted to say, with very little attention. But, coming nearer to our own times, there was one man who, he believed, had he lived, would have solved this question long since. He referred to Lord George Bentinck, who expressed a hope that some arrangement might be made which would compel absentee landlords to contribute to the wants of the poor in Ireland, and suggested that there should be two poor rates introduced, by which means, as appealing to their interests, absentee landlords would be induced to reside in Ireland. It was that opinion of Lord George Bentinck that encouraged him to lay his proposal before the Committee; and he trusted that the Government would, by accepting it, lend their assistance to check, to some extent, the great evil under which Ireland had so long suffered. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 8, after Clause 7, insert the following Clause:—
§ (Provision as to absentee landlords.)
§ "Any person who under any tenancy becomes the occupier or tenant of any premises liable to grand jury cess, and who is liable to 1647 pay a rent in respect of the same to an absentee landlord, shall be entitled each year to deduct from such rent the sum which he shall have during such years paid as grand jury cess. In case of dispute as to whether the landlord comes within the meaning of the word 'absentee,' and is without fixed residence in Ireland, the same shall on application be determined by the Court according to the circumstances of the case."—(Mr. Richard Power.)
§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. GLADSTONEI am sorry I can only meet the proposal of the hon. Member who has just sat down with a refusal. I wish to say nothing which will lead to the supposition that we do not view the subject of the hon. Member's Amendment as one of importance. On the contrary, the question raised by the hon. Member with reference to absentee landlords is, I think, one of very great gravity. I do not adopt the theory of those who who have undertaken, at times, to prove that absenteeism is not a misfortune to Ireland, in an economic sense; and, morally, I estimate it as a very great misfortune and disadvantage. But I should say that the proposal of the hon. Member is not germane to the present Bill. I think that a question appertaining to the local rates in Ireland is one which ought to be dealt with, if at all, in a separate Bill, and not in connection with a Land Bill. But there is one difficulty, which I must point out, in the clause proposed by the hon. Member, to which he has not referred in the speech which he has just made, and that is the difficulty, perhaps the impossibility, of defining what is an absentee landlord. In the time of Henry II., and in Tudor and Stuart times, the Executive Government undertook to make definitions for itself. But the hon. Member proposes to refer this definition to the Court, and I find, even in the clause itself, sufficient indication of the difficulty under which the hon. Member laboured, because he says, in case of dispute, it is the duty of the Court to ascertain two things; first of all, whether the landlord comes within the meaning of the word "absentee;" and, secondly, whether he is without fixed residence in Ireland. These two things are perfectly distinct from each 1648 other; and I believe the late Lord Hertford was the only man who would have been hit by this clause, because there is no doubt that he was an absentee landlord, and had no fixed residence in Ireland, although he derived a large income from estates in that country. To define an absentee landlord is, I believe, beyond the power of any legislator, and to refer it to the Court would evidently be placing on the Court the necessity of deciding a question entirely beyond their power. In expressing my inability to admit the clause of the hon. Member, I may say I hope he will not think I have treated his proposal with any disrespect, because I admit the gravity of the matters involved in it; and if he can see his way to make a proposal to lay special burdens on absentee proprietors, I should strongly affirm his right to do it, if he thinks fit.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, the Prime Minister seemed to indicate an impression on his mind that some liability should appertain to absentee proprietors; but, for his own part, he could not help thinking that "absentee" proprietors were, in many cases, the best proprietors in Ireland. He recollected that 50 years ago he was taken over the estate, in Ireland, by the agent of one of these so-called absentees, who pointed out to him the many and important improvements made by himself in respect of drainage, fencing, and agricultural works of all kinds, but observed that the landlord, for all the outlay he had made, had not received the return of 1s. The hon. Member, in laying his proposal before the Committee, had referred to some public Companies as absentee proprietors; but he (Mr. Gregory) doubted whether there were any estates in Ireland better managed than those of the London Societies, and he believed that their outlay was beyond that of any ordinary proprietor in the district. It seemed to him that if this Bill became law it would be likely to promote absenteeism in Ireland, because, whatever might be said, the Government were reducing the landlord to a position very much like that of a rent-charger. They were depriving him of the rights which attached and contributed to the enjoyment of property in this country, and the landlord would no longer be able to deal with his own as he could at present; he would have to look more to the revenue 1649 than to any enjoyment which could be derived from it. It was, therefore, impossible that landlords deprived of the rights which attached to the ownership of land in England and other countries should feel much interest in their Irish estates.
§ M. W. CORBETsaid, the Committee had but little idea of the great extent of absenteeism in Ireland, an evil which was not felt at all in England, because of the reciprocity which existed there. No doubt, there were many English absentee landlords; but this was compensated for by the number of persons who came to England from all parts of the world, and, therefore, he spoke of reciprocity, which did not exist in Ireland. The non-resident Irish proprietors numbered 2,973, and the area of their estates was 5,127,167 acres, with a valuation of £2,476,816, to which, if one-third were added for the difference between valuation and rental, there would result the sum of £3,294,421 as rental, an enormous amount, but which, nevertheless, did not represent the whole drain upon Ireland caused by absenteeism, because a great number of so-called resident proprietors spent a large portion of their revenue in England, and when they came to Ireland it was only for the purpose of saving and not of spending money. Again, the number of Companies which held land in Ireland was 161, the area of their property was 584,327 acres, andits valuation £234,768. From these figures it would be seen that considerably more than one quarter of the area of Ireland was held by absentees, and the effect of this upon the agriculture of the country might be very easily understood. Everyone would know that if one took out of a farm everything that it would produce and put nothing back, the soil would be exhausted; and it was precisely that result, metaphorically speaking, which had taken place in Ireland owing to the system of absenteeism, which had gone on for generations. It was England that had created this system, and it was to that House that Irish Members looked to remove the evil. He should most cordially support the clause of the hon. Member for Waterford.
§ MR. R. POWERsaid, after the speech of the Prime Minister, he did not intend to put the Committee to the trouble of a division. If the right hon. Gentleman 1650 was still in want of a definition of an "absentee," it would not be necessary to go back to the Reign of Henry II., because in 1715 it was enacted that 4s. in the pound was levied on propety in all cases where the landlord did not reside in the country for six months in the year. But perhaps the best definition was that of Dean Swift, who said that an absentee landlord "was an Irish landlord who lived in England on his Irish estates."
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to give power to the Court—
Where application is made by the landlord in the Court, under the provisions of the previous section, to fix a fair rent in respect of any holding, the tenant of which alleges that the landlord is an absentee, the Court may refuse to accede to the application on the ground that the absence of the landlord from his estate is of such an extent and character as to disentitle him to make such application.He thought this would have been the best way of approaching the subject of absenteeism; but he understood that the Chairman had ruled that the clause could not be put; and, therefore, he would merely say that he regretted that he should not be able to put the matter before the Committee in that shape, because he believed he would have been able to show, on unanswerable grounds, that absentee landlords ought to be treated on a different basis to other landlords. Now, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford approached this matter in a milder way, and he was sorry that the Prime Minister had not seen his way to accept his proposal. He certainly thought that landlords who lived out of Ireland for nine or ten months in the year ought to have some mark attached to them as regarded their treatment under this Bill. It was clearly improper that a landlord who derived a large income from Ireland, and who spent but a very small portion of it in that country, should receive all the advantages which this Bill would undoubtedly confer upon Irish landlords by many of its clauses. They would be better able to tell after six months how this matter stood; but his idea was that, if the landlords chose to apply to the Court to fix a judicial rent, the result would be a very material increase of rent, and, consequently, considerable dissatisfaction amongst their tenants. 1651 He found there were 2,973 absentee proprietors in Ireland, owning 5,000,000 acres of the best land of the country, and who spent most of the money derived therefrom out of the country—that was to say,—3,500,000 annually. He thought the policy of separate treatment for absentee landlords was very important, especially when taken in connection with the general character of the Bill, which would, undoubtedly, establish a uniform rate of rent, to which landlords and tenants would be able to appeal. In fact, in the course of five or six months after the passing of the Bill, it would be possible for tenants in any part of Ireland to know what judicial rent the Court would fix in respect of holdings throughout Ireland.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished also to express regret that the Government had not seen their way to deal with the question of absenteeism. There were several reasons why the Government should take up this question, one of them being that the proposal they might make would not meet with any serious objection from any section of the House. He was not, of course, qualified to speak as to the opinion upon this subject which was entertained by Conservative Gentlemen in that House; but lie believed he was correct in saying that their feelings were quite as strong as those of Irish Members with regard to its injurious effects upon the people of Ireland. He knew of one Conservative Gentleman who evinced, in quite as strong terms as any Irish Member, his feeling with regard to absenteeism in Ireland; and the feeling which he believed to exist amongst the Conservative Party was one reason why the Government, if they saw their way to deal with the question, would not be overloading their Bill, because their proposal would not be likely to receive any serious opposition. Another reason was because the Bill would do little for Ireland unless it materially increased the application of capital in Ireland; and how could it do that when it allowed one-third of the whole rental of the country to be exported? He did not know what were the exact figures, nor had he the means of testing the accuracy of the Estimates which were made of the amount annually taken away from Ireland under this head; but he believed that the sum drawn annually from the country by absentee landlords 1652 was estimated at from £3,000,000 to £4,000,000. It was impossible that, as long as this large drain continued, there could be prosperity in Ireland; and it appeared to him that, in dealing with this question of land tenure, and endeavouring to promote the future agricultural resources of the country, they had committed the error in passing by and entirely ignoring one of the most radical evils of the land system. He would point to one or two other questions raised in the course of this discussion—the question relating to the agricultural labourer. When that was raised at first, there seemed to be an eager competition between the different sections of the House as to which would prove to be the true friend of the agricultural labourer. He was not going to analyze motives, but it appeared to him that the Conservative Party took up the question because the agricultural labourer offered a convenient form of working against the tenant farmers, and that the Liberal Party did so because it was a convenient counterpoise, while Irish Members sitting below the Gangway on that side of the House were said to have taken it up from motives of the darkest and most dire character. He wished to draw attention to the fact that when the case of the agricultural labourer came before the House, although it was foreign to the purport of the Bill, every section of opinion amongst hon. Members was joined in pressing it on the attention of the Government, while, at the same time, the Government devoted a large amount of time and energy to the subject. But, after all, was not the truest way of approaching the question to increase the wages fund of the country? And how could that be attempted while one-third of the rental went out of the country?
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Member was travelling beyond the Question before the Committee.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR, of course, submitted at once to the ruling of the Chairman. He had been endeavouring to reply to the argument of the Prime Minister, which he understood to be that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford was rather foreign to the purpose of the Bill, and that it was an Amendment of a kind which, according to the practice of the House of Commons, could not be dealt with; and he 1653 was endeavouring to show how the Government had dealt with another matter which, to his mind, was far more foreign to the Bill.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, this was probably, a fitting moment to point out why it was that he had ruled two Amendments out of Order and allowed this one to be discussed. The reason for this was that the question of county cess was determined by the 56th clause of the Act of 1870, and, therefore, might be amended by a Bill of a like character.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORunderstood the provisions of the Bill as passed provided for the application to the Court with regard to fixing a fair rent, but that nothing was said in regard to the persons who made the application. The Bill did not contain any provision for the exclusion of any particular class of landlords; and he should be glad if the Attorney General for Ireland were able to take advantage of the raising of the question dealt with in the present Amendment to give some indication of his own opinions on the subject, and also of his willingness to co-operate with Irish Members in making some proposal for the purpose of dealing with the grave and serious evil of absenteeism.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSremarked, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had expressed his belief that Conservative Members of the House would take the same view as himself with regard to the evils of absenteeism. He did not pretend to speak in their behalf with the same authority as that claimed by the hon. Member; but he believed that everybody would wish to see Irish proprietors resident on their estates during a great part of the year. To that extent he agreed with the hon. Member; but that was one reason which induced the Conservative Party in the House to oppose the Bill—because they regarded it as a measure which would increase absenteeism. But it was not Conservatives only who took that view, because, having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), he was inclined to think that hon. Members had come round to the same view, for he had told the Committee that the Bill was designed in the interest of the absentee landlords of Ireland. They had always said that this Bill would induce by penal consequences landlords to give up their residences in Ireland and take as much 1654 Irish money out of the country as they could for the purpose of spending it elsewhere.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORdesired to correct a misapprehension. He did not say he desired to see the absentee landlords return to discharge their duties in Ireland. For his own part, he would like to see all the landlords of Ireland absentee, or rather he would like to see the landlords present and landlordism absent.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought the hon. Member and his Friends were a little inconsistent, because in the early debates on this Bill the example of the great absentee landlords was held up to the House as justifying one of the important provisions of the measure—namely, that relating to free sale. From all sides the management of the estates of Lord Portsmouth was praised. He understood Lord Portsmouth was a non-resident landlord; but now the Committee were told that non-resident landlords ought to be fined.
§ SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he cordially sympathized with the Amendment, and was prepared to go into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Waterford to support it. One of the greatest evils of Ireland was that landlords who derived a considerable revenue from the country spent the money, estimated by Mr. Giffen at £6,000,000, in England or in foreign countries, and deprived Irishmen of the kindly and social influence and example which produced such inestimable benefits wherever they were felt. He was not one of those political economists who held that money spent out of a country must benefit those who were in it. Though he agreed with the Prime Minister that there were difficulties in the matter, he maintained, with Burke, that it was the business of a Government to overcome difficulties.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the question was not one of absenteeism, but whether there should be an apportionment of the county cess between the tenant and the absentee landlord.
§ SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he understood that this was a proposal to mulct absentee landlords. He would like to see a double Income Tax placed upon landlords who did not reside upon their estates six months in the year. If the highest personages in the Realm 1655 were to go to Ireland occasionally, as they did to Scotland, not only would Ireland benefit financially, but a kindly feeling would be aroused, and the difficulties from which they now laboured would be removed.
§ MR. DAWSON, while sympathizing with the object of the hon. Member for Waterford, could not agree that his Amendment embodied the best means of securing it. He believed that the proper way of bringing people to live in Ireland was to attract them by the advantages of living there; by social order and contentment; by the pleasures and enjoyments of a refined society, and by all the attractions which a capital, the seat of the Legislature of the country, would hold out. He repeated that while he cordially sympathized with the object of his hon. Friend, he should regret that any class of persons should be forced to live there as the result of a penal clause in the Bill.
§ MR. R. POWERdeclined to withdraw the Amendment, because he found that his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would not be able to move the clause of which he had given Notice.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAappealed to his hon. Friend (Mr. R. Power) not to put the Committee to the trouble of a division.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 249: Majority 209.—(Div. List, No. 325.)
§ Mr. PARNELLsaid, he wished to submit a point of Order to the Chairman, in respect of the clause which stood in his name. He had given Notice to insert, after Clause 7, a new Clause, which provided—
Where application is made by the landlord to the Court under the provisions of the preceding section to fix a fair rent in respect of any holding, the tenant of which alleges that the landlord is an absentee, the Court may refuse to accede to the application, on the ground that the absence of the landlord from his estate is of such an extent and character as to disentitle him to make such application.By Section 7, which the Committee had already passed—The tenant of any present tenancy to which the Act applies, or such tenant and the landlord jointly, or the landlord, after having demanded from such tenant an increase of rent, which the tenant has declined to accept, may, from time to 1656 time during the continuance of such tenancy, apply to the Court to fix the fair rent to be paid by such tenant to the landlord for his holding.That meant that every tenant to whom the Act applied, and every landlord were entitled, under the mode prescribed in Section 7 in the second part of the Bill, to apply to the Court to fix a fair rent. Then, by sub-section 4, that right was limited in the following manner:—Where an application is made to the Court under this section in respect of any tenancy, the Court may, if it think fit, disallow such application where the Court is satisfied that on the holding in which such tenancy subsists, the improvements have, during the tenancy of the tenant and his predecessors in title, been made and substantially maintained by the landlord and not by the tenant.That sub-section was not so much an exception of the rights of the landlord as of the tenant to apply to the Court, as a limit in respect of their application after it had been made, or, in other words, it permitted the Court to disallow the application after it had been made under the provisions of Clause 7. Following the precedent set by sub-section 4, he had drafted the new clause which he had read to the Committee during the discussion of the previous Amendment. It gave power to the Court, where an application was made by the landlord to the Court, to disallow that application on the ground that the landlord was an absentee landlord, and that his absence was of such a character and extent as not to entitle such application to be allowed. He had thought, and still thought, to a certain extent, but he did not wish to press the matter, as the Chairman had ruled otherwise, that the precedent giving the Court power to disallow an application made by the tenant under certain circumstances would also entitle him to move his new clause, giving power to the Court to disallow the application when made by the landlord under certain circumstances. But it appeared to him that the Chairman had probably based his ruling on the fact that Clause 7, with its limiting provisions and exceptions, had already been passed, and, therefore, that it was not in Order to modify or alter that clause in any way by a subsequent new clause. What he wished to ask was, if it would be in Order to move this new clause on the Report in the shape of a sub-section to Clause 7?
THE CHAIRMANI have no power to give an opinion as to what may be considered in Order when the Speaker is in the Chair. It will be for the Speaker to give that decision when the Report is before the House.
§ MR. PARNELLwished to know if the Chairman had based his decision against the proposed clause on the ground that it was not in Order to modify a clause after it had been passed by another clause, or on the ground that the subject-matter of the new clause was foreign to the Bill?
THE CHAIRMANIt is because I am of opinion that the clause the hon. Member proposes is inconsistent with the provisions of the clause empowering the Court to fix a fair rent, and also Clause 34.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that, under those circumstances, he would not move the clause of which he had given Notice.
§ (Provisions for encouraging the planting of timber trees.)
§ "That from and after the passing of this Act the provisions contained in the first section of the Act of the fifth year of the reign of George the Third, chapter seventeen, for encouraging the planting of timber trees in reference to tenants for lives renewable for ever, and as confirmed by the eleventh section of the seventh year of the reign of George the Third, chapter twenty, in reference to tenants holding by fee farm, shall apply to every tenant of a present tenancy under this Act, so that such last-mentioned tenants shall not be impeachable of waste in timber, trees, or woods, planted by them after the passing of this Act. For the purposes of this Act, timber, trees, and woods so planted by the tenants of a present tenancy shall be deemed to be improvements within the meaning of this Act."
§ He thought the clause covered a very important subject, and one that was of great interest to Ireland. There had been various Acts passed upon the subject, dating from the Reign of William III., and the object of all of them was to encourage the planting of trees in Ireland. It was found that the old timber in Ireland was fast disappearing, and various attempts had been made, from the time of William III. down to the year 1765, to encourage planting; but all of them failed, owing to the requirement of registration. It was provided that the timber must be registered, and the tenants would not go to the trouble of registration. In 1765 there were 1658 leases for old plantations, with covenants for perpetual renewal. As the Committee were aware, it was the inheritor or the owner of the inheritance who was entitled to the timber; but, still, the timber did not belong either to the owner or the lessee by the terms of the lease, and, consequently, an Act was passed for the purpose of vesting the timber in the lessees subsequently created. He proposed by this clause to transfer the rights conferred under the Act 5 Geo. III. from lessees in Ireland to statutable tenants with the perpetual right of renewal. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) desired any alteration in the clause, or even to omit the latter part of it, which provided that, for the purposes of the Act, timber, trees, and wood so planted by the tenants of a present tenancy should be deemed to be improvements within the meaning of the Act, he would confine the clause to the first part, which simply provided that the provisions of 5 Geo. III., c. 17, confirmed by 7 Geo. III., c. 20, should be applied to every tenant of a present tenancy under the present Act. He had simply copied the words of the Acts of Geo. III., and the second part of the clause only conferred the same rights on tenants in fee farm as were conferred upon tenants for ever. He did not think there would be any real question of dispute between either the landlord or the tenant as to the encouragement of timber planting. It was a well-known fact that the timber of Ireland was fast disappearing. Within the last 18 months both landlord and tenant had been very hard up, and they had made use of all the timber they could get hold of. In his own county (Kilkenny), if the destruction which had been going on was continued, in a very short time they would be left without trees altogether. It was important, therefore, not only in the interests of the tenant but of the landlords and of the country generally, that something should be done to encourage the planting of timber.
§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the hon. 1659 Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) had raised a question of considerable importance; but it was also one of considerable difficulty. It must be remembered that they had given a considerable amount of freedom to the tenant already, and that it was not desirable that they should go further, unless what they did could be shown to be for the general benefit of the Irish people; and he wished to point out that if the alteration now proposed by the hon. Member were accepted, it would be necessary to alter various statutes that were at present in force. It would certainly be requisite that there should be a system of registration if the tenants were to have an absolute property in the trees that were planted by them. Fifty years hence it would be almost impossible, without some formal record, to discover when a tree was cut down whether it was a tree that was there before the passing of the Act of 1881 or not. All the timber now on a holding belonged to the landlord, and it was not proposed by the present clause to make any interference in that respect. But his hon. Friend proposed that all timber planted after the passing of the Act should belong to the tenant; and who could tell 50 years after the passing of the Act which tree belonged to the tenant and which to the landlord? He would, however, promise to give the question further consideration before the bringing up of the Report.
§ MR. MARUMsaid, that his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland anticipated that there would be legal difficulties in the way, and as he (Mr. Marum) was sensible of them himself, he would not press the clause; but as no objection had been raised to it on that side of the House, he hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would give the subject some consideration, and see whether he would not be able to deal with it upon Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CHAPLINmoved, after Clause 13, to insert the following Clause:—
§ (Yearly Return respecting judicial rent.)
§ "There shall be, not later than the first day of March in each year, laid before both Houses of Parliament a Return showing the judicial rent fixed in every case by the Court, or by the Land Commission, and showing whether the same is equal to, or less than, or greater than, the rent payable by the tenant at the date when the application was made; and where it 1660 is greater or less than the former rent, the amount by which the increase or reduction has been made, and the circumstances and reasons in and for which the increase or reduction was made by the Court or Commission."
§ The object of the clause was to provide that early every year a Return showing the judicial rent fixed by the Court or the Land Commission should be presented to both Houses of Parliament. The Return would show whether the rent had been fixed at a greater rate than before or at a less rate, and the amount of the reduction or increase. It would also give the reason why an alteration had taken place. He reminded the Committee that the Bill was a serious innovation upon their ordinary legislation. It was one that was introduced for the first time; and there was to be no appeal whatever from the decision of the Land Commission. It was therefore only fair to the tenant whose rent might have been increased, and also for the interest of the landlord whose rent might be lowered, that such a Return should be laid periodically on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, in order if there was an irregularity in their decisions there might be an opportunity of calling attention to it.
§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. GLADSTONEI hardly think that the hon. Gentleman can require the Returns in connection with the judicial rent which he asks for in this clause. Returns will be presented to Parliament by the Land Commission possibly in the first year of its existence; but I do not think that it will be a very interesting matter to know all these minute details. No doubt, the Court will give the general facts in regard to their movements and operations; but I do not think we should call upon the Court to go into extreme details. And there is also another objection, that it might not be desirable or agreeable to give these Returns in the interest of private persons. I think there are many cases in which the details of the transactions would be found to be very objectionable to the parties most intimately concerned.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the clause proposed by the hon. Member did not 1661 require that the names of the owner and the tenant should be given. [Mr. CHAPLIN: No; only of the holding.] The clause did not require that the names should be given, and they might be specified by numbers. He thought it important that Parliament should have detailed information of the working of the Land Commission; and he did not think that the reason assigned by the Prime Minister—namely, that it might consume a certain amount of paper in giving the returns, and entail some trouble on the officials in making them, should really have any practical weight. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not deem it necessary to oppose such a Return in a modified form. He certainly hoped that Parliament would obtain this information, which would be of a most interesting character, and without it they would not be able to astertain the working of the Commission, or know anything about what was really doing. It would be exceedingly inconvenient if they did not get this information, and all sorts of statements would be made as to the working of the Commission—some of them true, others untrue, and others very much exaggerated. It was, therefore, most desirable that there should be some means of checking unfounded reports.
MR. GLADSTONEWe could not entertain the clause in the form in which it now stands. Not only are all the partitulars to be given in figures, but the Return is also to show the amount by which the increase or reduction has been made, and the circumstances and reasons in and for which the increase or reduction was made by the Court or Commission We certainly could not accede to such an Amendment.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he hoped the Government would assent, if not to the actual Amendment on the Paper, to the insertion of some words by which Parliament would hereafter be placed in possession of all the facts in relation to the working of the Commission so far as the fixing of judicial rents was concerned. The object of his hon. Friend would be gained if words were inserted in the clause already proposed by the Government in reference to judicial rent, to show what a judicial rent was, what the Government valuation of the holding was, and what the rent of the holding was before the judicial rent 1662 was fixed. That was all that was necessary; and it was most desirable, for various reasons, that some Return of this sort should be made. It was almost necessary that the Government should furnish the House with an authoritative record of the proceedings of the Commission; and if this Return were given, it would afford an additional inducement to landlords and tenants to come to an amicable arrangement as to rent, without making an application to the Court. Unless the real facts were given in the Return, he did not see how landlords and tenants would be able to come to a satisfactory conclusion.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he such was of opinion that it would be sufficient if the Annual Report of the Land Commission brought out as many details as possible.
MR. GLADSTONEIt appears to me that it will be clearly the duty of the Land Commission to make a Return which will give all the information in their power.
§ MR. CHAPLINremarked that, if it would remove the difficulty in any way, he would be willing to omit the words with regard to the circumstances and reasons for which the increase or reduction was made. He did not see in any respect the difficulty which the Prime Minister had pointed out. Surely the Court would keep a record of its proceedings; and he only asked the Court to specify once a-year the reduction or increase which had been made in the rent. Unless a record was kept that was available for the use of Parliament, the proceedings of the Court or of the Commission would be practically carried on in the dark; and he must say that in the novel state of things like that which was about to be established a proceeding of that kind was one which Parliament ought not to sanction. If the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was willing to give an undertaking that provision would be made in the Bill for Returns to be laid on the Table once a-year, giving the facts in each case where the rent had been increased or reduced, he would not press the clause further.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would consider the sub- 1663 ject before the Report. It was of immense importance that they should educate the public mind in Ireland as to the working of this Act; and, therefore, it was desirable to lay a Return before Parliament showing that such and such facts had resulted from bringing the questions in dispute before a judicial tribunal. Such a Return would enable the landlords and tenants in future to see how they could best make arrangements between themselves. He did not think that it would entail much inconvenience upon the Commission to give the Return asked for by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin).
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that, admitting the importance of getting this Return, he would suggest to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Chaplin) that it would be better to wait until the Commission had been at work for a certain time, and then to move for a Return. If such a Return did not include all the information the hon. Gentleman desired, he would be much better able to frame a Return stating clearly what he wanted.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he could explain in a moment why this proposition would be utterly useless. What was the use of his moving for a Return from the present Government? He could not see any possible objection to the present clause. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said it was not desirable to give the details asked for in the interests of private persons. Now, he thought it perfectly possible that there might be cases of hardship which would arise in the fixing of judicial rents; and if there were such cases of hardship, it was desirable that they should not be concealed—that the work should not be done in the dark—but should be laid openly before Parliament. He was not anxious to delay the progress of the Bill. On the contrary, he was very anxious to see it brought to a close, so far as that House was concerned; and he, therefore, asked the Government to say at once what their feeling was in the matter. He understood that they were willing to make some concession, and he wanted to know what it was. If the principle of his clause were rejected altogether, he was afraid he must put the Committee to the trouble of a division.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, they were having a large staff of 1664 Assistant Commissioners. Nobody knew who they were to be, and it was only right and proper that their proceedings should be subject to the criticism of Parliament. He entertained a strong view on this point, because he was anxious that if the provisions of the Bill were to be put in force the work should be well and properly done, and there should be some supervision over the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioners such as that of the House of Commons. He had hoped the Prime Minister would see his way to accept the proposal for laying a Return before both Houses of Parliament. Without such a Return there would be no guarantee that the Assistant Commissioners would do their duty.
§ SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he had no doubt that the House was entitled to get a Return of the way in which the work of the Commission was done; but he did not think the foresight of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) was any better than the foresight of those who had been engaged in framing the Bill. They ought not, therefore, to take the Amendment as one which anticipated all the experience which the country could give. It was admitted on all hands that it was desirable to have Returns from the Commission; and the only question was whether the best mode of furnishing those Returns was to be obtained by the adoption of the hon. Member's clause.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought the argument of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Sir Thomas Acland) was all very well as far as it went; but what his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) suggested was that there should be a certain definite orderly proceeding; whereas the suggestion made by hon. Members on the other side was that there should be a Motion proposed from time to time, and that would possibly lead to an angry debate. He thought the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire was a very reasonable one, and the objection to it of the Prime Minister was simply one of sentiment. The omission of the words objected to by the Prime Minister would make the clause a perfectly fair and reasonable one.
§ MR. WARTONwould suggest that in addition to the alteration his hon. 1665 Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) desired to make, he might add a few words at the end of the clause to this effect—
Provided always that neither the names of the landlords nor the tenants shall be given in the return.
MR. GLADSTONEThe hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) has stated his willingness, if the Committee will read the clause a second time, to leave out the words at the end of the clause—
And the circumstances and reasons in and for which the increase or reduction was made by the Court or Commission.But the Return then would be of very little value, for it would simply be a nominal enumeration of a very great number of holdings belonging to particular landlords and occupied by particular tenants. If, without stating the circumstances and reasons in this way, when a reduction of rent was made the other particulars of each case were to be given, an opportunity would be afforded for the most invidious remarks to be made against individuals, without the Return containing any countervailing advantage, because the Return would be of no use whatever unless it was accompanied by a statement of the circumstances and reasons. What could possibly be the use of a statement in figures of a great number of holdings? It will be the duty of the Commissioners to set out all interesting matter as the result of their proceedings; but it would be possible for them, if the hon. Member gives up the circumstances and reasons, to give the particulars of the cases without adding the circumstances and reasons. If we cannot trust the Commissioners to give all information of interest connected with their proceedings, then I am afraid that it will not be a very good omen for the satisfactory working of the Bill. The clause which we have already adopted lays it upon the Commission, as a matter of absolute duty, to present to Parliament, in the most convenient and accessible form, all the information which is necessary to give Parliament an insight into the working of the Act; but to give the dry bones of a perfectly dead skeleton, containing nothing but an enumeration of names without the motives and reasons, would be most unadvisable.
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he really could not see why there should be any difference of opinion upon the matter. To his mind it seemed almost certain that the Commissioners would give the particulars asked for. When the House was about to enter upon the discussion of the present Land Bill, he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to present to the House for its information a Return showing the number of cases which had occurred under the working of the Land Act of 1870, which Return was to give the particulars now asked for. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland admitted that such a Return would be of invaluable assistance to the House on this measure; but said that it would take three months to prepare it, because the Commissioners had not kept their accounts in a manner that would facilitate such a Return. Although he believed that the Commissioners would do what the Prime Minister suggested under the present Bill, he could not see any harm in taking care that the books of the Land Court should be kept in such a manner as to show the number of cases in which an application was made to the Court, the amount of rent paid, and the amount fixed after the audit. He had himself employed a clerk to go over the books in order to obtain a Return similar to that procured at the instance of the late Mr. M'Carthy Downing in 1871, 1872, and 1873; and he regretted very much that he had not been able as yet to obtain it complete, because he thought that if he had been in a position to produce it, it would have disposed of many of the charges which had been brought against the Act of 1870. Really, he did not see why the Government should refuse to give the particular Return asked for.
§ MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, he could not understand why the Government should refuse to give this information. All the information would bo in the possession of the Court, and it would appear in the local newspapers, and he did not think that any Irish landlord would have the least objection to the publication of these Returns. It was delightful to find the Irish Members unanimous for once, and as all of them had spoken in favour of this clause, he trusted that the Government would give 1667 due weight to their request. The powers that were proposed to be given to the Court were altogether unprecedented, and as there was nothing to guide the Commissioners, it would be a great advantage to the people of Ireland to know how they were discharging their duty. He did not see how the information could be so well given as by the presentation of a Return similar to that asked for by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin).
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was more than ever convinced that it was desirable for the Committee to accept this clause. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he thought that in the last speech made by the right hon. Gentleman he had entirely changed his ground. It was quite true that he (Mr. Chaplin) had consented to give up the words "circumstances and reasons;" but he had done so at the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and in order to get rid of a difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman pointed out. But now the right hon. Gentleman said that as those words had been given up the whole clause was useless, and vitiated the entire proposal. Now, how was that consistent with the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that there was to be a record which was to be laid on the Table of the House? His hon. Friend (Mr. Mulholland) said that all the particulars would be published in the local newspapers. That was quite true, and all that he asked in addition was that once a year the same particulars should be placed on the Table of the House in a concise form. Certainly, it was of interest to the tenants to know whether the rents had been increased, and it was to the interest of the landlords to know whether they had been lowered. His hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Thomas Acland) told them that it was desirable to have the information; and then, having told them that, he proceeded to argue that it was undesirable that the means of getting the information should be provided in the Bill. He entirely differed from his hon. Friend, and thought it was most desirable and necessary that the means of getting the information should be provided by Parliament before the Bill became law. That being so, unless he could get a more satisfactory assurance 1668 from the Government, he should certainly take a division upon the clause.
§ MR. DALYjoined in the appeal to the Government to permit the publication of this information. It would involve no trouble whatever to the Court, as the Court or the Commission must keep a record of the cases which came before it to be tried. He believed himself that the first thing they had to do in regard to the Commission was to create confidence in the mind of the public, and he thought it was even desirable to have a summary published of all the cases and of the reasons for the decisions, so as to enable all persons to see whether there was uniformity of decision. Such a Return would be invaluable to Members of Parliament. It would enable them to ascertain whether the Assistant Commissioners were able and competent men. At present there was some distrust in the mind of the public as to the manner in which the provisions of the Bill would be carried out, and a similar distrust had been displayed in regard to the working of the Act of 1870. Certainly, there had been a great want of uniformity in regard to the decisions of the Chairmen in the different counties. He thought the Prime Minister had failed to give any good reason why the Return in an extended form should not be annually made. There was another feature. The hon. Member for Cork had said that 12 persons would see that a certain uniform basis of rent would be established through the majority of opinions, if the majority were to be the basis for an advance of rent, or if it was to be a basis for leaving things as they were. He (Mr. Daly) believed that the publication of these statistical summaries would be one great reason for deterring people from going to the Court. There really were no reasons but those applicable to the question of the labour of getting them out, why they should not have the Return asked for in its extended form.
§ MR. REDMONDsincerely trusted that this Motion would be pressed to a division. It seemed to him that they had arrived at a condition of things in which the demand advanced was almost unanswerable. They found that the demand made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) had been put forward on behalf of Gentlemen who, perhaps, of all others in that House, might be more 1669 accurately supposed to represent the landed interest on that question; and, on the other hand, the proposal was strongly recommended and supported by those who represented directly in that House the tenant farmers of Ireland. They had, therefore, both parties who were interested in the question most anxious for a Report such as was asked for by the Motion before the Committee. What, he asked, was the demand that had been made? It was simply this, that the Land Commission should not carry on their work in the dark. It was simply that the working of the Committee should be reported annually—that the amount of the reductions of rent which the Commission might make should be annually published; that a Return should be made which would have, in one column, the old rent, and in another column the judicial rent, and in a third column, perhaps, the valuation rent. It seemed to him that the contention of Her Majesty's Government that, because they thought it unadvisable in every case to state in a Return such as this the reasons on which the Land Commission might come to a decision, therefore they should not state the decisions themselves, was wholly and utterly indefensible. For his part, he could not see why they should not only state the decisions, but also the reasons that had guided them in arriving at those decisions. Of course, if they went minutely and fully into every particular case decided, and the reasons which in any way had governed those decisions, they might have to furnish very voluminous Reports; but he must say that the statement that the production of those Returns would be invidious, had, in his view, no foundation whatever, because they found that the hon. Gentleman who had spoken a moment ago, and who was a landlord, or who represented landlords, and others who acted with him, were most anxious that this Return should be made, and it was not likely that they would ask for any information that they thought would be prejudicial to the landlords. The House had been told, not only on this occasion, but on almost every other in reference to this Bill, that the conduct of the landlords in Ireland had been such as not to be in the least liable to injury by having the full flood of light thrown upon it. On more 1670 than one occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had stated that the majority of the Irish landlords had been acquitted of any misconduct as far as rents were concerned. If this were so, on what conceivable ground could Her Majesty's Government in justice refuse that a Report should be made to that House which would acquaint them exactly with the condition in regard to rent in which the Commission would find those estates with which they would deal, as well as the condition in regard to rent in which the Commission would leave them? He must express his sincere hope that the Motion before the Committee would be pressed to a division. He did not think it could be fairly left to the Commission to do the work they were charged with without a special clause directing them to do what was now proposed. If it were supposed that the Commission would make such a Report of their own Motion, then the speech of the Prime Minister and others who had opposed the Motion were wholly unnecessary, because their case was that such a Report ought not to be made. ["No!"] Hon. Gentlemen said "No!" but he asserted that the contention on the part of the Government was that the Report asked for ought not to be made. It had been refused by Her Majesty's Government on the ground that the Commissioners could not state the figures without giving the reasons that guided the settlement of those figures, and that, consequently, the Report asked for ought not to be made. This being so, he sincerely trusted that the hon. Member who had charge of the Motion would press it to a division; and for his part he was not sorry that, almost for the first time during these discussions, he should have the pleasure of finding himself in the same Lobby with the Conservative Party.
§ MR. JOHN BRIGHTAs I have listened to the arguments used in support of this Motion on that side of the House, I have arrived at the conclusion that I shall be compelled to vote against it. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) has said that there might be some great hardship in particular cases, and that particular judgments and counter judgments might require exposure and discussion in this House; but I think that neither the House nor this Committee will desire that we should 1671 have some 20,000 cases published in a Blue Book in order that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire may pick out one or two cases of great hardship and bring them before this House for exposure and discussion. The hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) has said he wishes to have a summary of the business done by the Commission; but that is exactly what the Commission are bound under this Bill to give. In the clause, as already passed, there are these words—
The Land Commission shall once in every year, after the year 1881, make a Report to the Lord Lieutenant as to their proceedings under this Act, and every such Report shall be presented to Parliament.That is as comprehensive as the direction generally given to Commissions of this or any other kind as to the Reports they shall make. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire further said there would be different judgments and opinions in the working of the Act in different districts of the country; and he wished to examine these, and contrast them, and put one against the other—in fact, to bring generally the secrets of the various Courts in Ireland, not only before the public, but before this House, for the purposes of discussion, approval, or censure. I do not see why we should do this. We have lately had a Question put in this House to the Home Secretary as to a sentence passed by one of the Judges. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said he had no power to alter the sentence, or increase the severity of it; but what would be said if hon. Members from Ireland, or the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) were to be constantly bringing questions as to the decisions of the Courts under this Bill before the House? It seems to me that we should, by passing this clause, be showing a want of confidence in the Commission that is being appointed which is quite unusual, which is quite unnecessary, and which might lead to very great difficulty hereafter. The hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Redmond) seems to be quite unaware that the Commission are already bound by a clause in the Act to make a Report to Parliament, and there can be no doubt that the Commission will be most anxious to give Parliament the fullest information that can possibly be required; and if it should be possible to suppose that the Commission would be unwilling to 1672 do this, the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary would be willing to urge upon them the necessity of discharging their duty in this respect; while if there should be any such failure to give information, it would be easy for hon. Members to complain that the Report was not sufficiently clear. There are plenty of modes of getting what we want without drawing a hard-and-fast line like this, by which we should be saying that the Commissioners are to put down every particular case. If on every occasion the Commissioners were to put down every case that came before them from all parts of Ireland, you would have one half of the Commissioners engaged in recording what the other half does, and at the same time compiling a Blue Book of such a size that nobody would read it, and of which, if anyone did read it, be could make no practical use. I think the Committee might trust to the Executive Government and the Commissioners for all the information that will really be required, without laying down rules that would be very inconvenient and entirely unnecessary.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he thought that if anyone showed a want of confidence in the Commissioners it was the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who did not seem to desire the proceedings of the Commissioners to be made public. The right hon. Gentleman had intimated that if they wanted to get the particulars asked for by the clause there was no doubt they would get them if they were to move for them in the ordinary way; but he (Mr. Stanhope) and those who acted with him said "No." They might find that the Commissioners would not make the sufficient Returns nor in reasonable time, and they desired by a clause of this kind to give warning to the Commission that such Returns were likely to be wanted, and that it was necessary that so useful a check was to be kept.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in opposing the clause had said that he thought a use might be made of the Returns which would bring the decisions of the Courts to abuse, and that one part of the Commission would be holding views that were opposed to those of the other part, while the decisions in 1673 one county might be adverse to those of another county. But this result would not be effected by the granting of the Return; it was what would happen in any case, for the proceedings of the Court would be sure to be subjected to the closest possible scrutiny and brought before the House and made the subject of debates. The great object of the Return was that by its means the House should have the most reliable possible information. The Report of the Commission would otherwise be a most general thing; and it was absolutely essential that general Reports of this kind, which would lay down general principles, should be borne out by detailed statements. No doubt, Her Majesty's Government had a very good reason for refusing this complete Return. It was because Her Majesty's Government knew—but perhaps he should be wrong in saying what he was about to say, and he therefore would not say it. He might, however, say that the reasons which had been assigned by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were not very strong.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, there was one remark that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that had struck him very forcibly. The right hon. Gentleman had said the Commission would be ready and willing and prepared to give the fullest information to the House. Well, this was all the Committee required. What they wanted was the fullest information in every particular, and if the Commissioners would be willing to give this it seemed most natural and just that it should be required by Act of Parliament. He merely wished to add that a great deal of the time of Parliament would in future be saved if such an annual Return as was asked for were given, because it would otherwise happen that wherever information might be required as to particular districts, hon. Members representing those districts would ask for Returns; and as this process might be repeated over and over again, and week after week every Session, it would save time if the Returns could be given in the form asked for.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 161: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 326.)
1674§ And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman reported Progress; Committee to sit again this day.