SECOND READING. (Hansard, 9 April 1867)

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that as he had last Session submitted a similar Bill for their Lordships' consideration, he need not enter into any detailed description of its provisions. There was nothing compulsory in the measure. On the contrary, its main object and principle were, that all transactions in regard to land between landlord and tenant should rest upon voluntary contract. It was a mistake to suppose, as some persons appeared to do, that the small class of tenants in Ireland were not as much alive to the best mode of making a good bargain for themselves and as capable of understanding the engagements they entered into as any other persons whatever. When Parliament was legislating on the question, it ought to legislate in a comprehensive manner, and with a due regard to other classes of occupiers of land besides the peasant occupiers. In Ireland there were tenants paying rents not only as high as £500, but £5,000—and he believed even £10,000 a year. He trusted that the Government would allow the Bill to be read a second time; and he should be glad to see it referred to a Select Committee to which, if the Government desired it, the Bills on this subject, now in the House of Commons, might be remitted when they came up to their Lordships' House, so that they might be examined together, and, if possible, a satisfactory measure should be passed this Session.

§ LORD MONCK
said, he did not rise to oppose the second reading of this Bill, the main object of which commended itself to all, since it proposed to consolidate and simplify the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland; to provide for the formation of cheap and accessible tribunals for settling disputes, and to facilitate the granting of leases. So far the object of the Bill was admirable. Looking, however, to the intricacy of the subject, and the numerous difficult and professional questions which it involved, he was rather startled to find such a subject taken up by a private Member of Parliament; and he was therefore much relieved to find that the Bill was to be referred to the same Select Committee as the Government Bills, where it would undergo professional scrutiny by the responsible Advisers of the Crown. The Bill also professed to deal with the 1325 compensation to tenants for improvements, and also with the manner in which land for the future should be held in Ireland. These were subjects which had for many years excited the attention of the farming class in Ireland, and had created a great deal of excitement among other classes. Like all other subjects which became matters of public interest, this was liable to be, and had been from time to time, prostituted for party or personal objects. Making every allowance, however, for those feelings, he believed there existed among Irish tenant farmers a strong and well-founded sense of grievance in reference to their position. He believed that the people entertained a great desire for legislation on this subject; and he believed he should be able to show their Lordships that the demands of the people were not unreasonable, and might be satisfied without an invasion of the rights of property. Various measures had been introduced into Parliament; but, though some of them had become law, they had failed to set the agitation at rest; and, with one exception, none of those measures having the slightest chance of success had received the approbation of those who represented the tenant farmers. The reason for the failure which had attended every attempt at legislation he believed to be this—that they had dealt merely with the symptoms which appeared on the surface of the body politic, and had not probed the causes of those symptoms. They had not ascertained the real grievances of the tenant farmers, and therefore the remedies they had attempted to supply had been insufficient. Attention had been directed to the question of compensation to tenants for improvements, when the real secret of the discontent which prevailed was the unsatisfactory condition under which land was generally held by Irish farmers. Those who were old enough—as he unfortunately was—to recollect when the question first gained prominence among Irish political topics would remember that it bore the character of a claim for fixity of tenure. That idea had never been abandoned by the Irish farmers; and he (Lord Monck) believed that demand was not unreasonable, and might be carried out without any invasion of the rights of property. The Bill introduced last year by Ids right hon. Friend Mr. Chichester Fortescue, and which he had reason to know would have been accepted by those who represented the tenant farmers of Ireland as a fair 1326 settlement, proposed, no doubt, to give very stringent rights to tenants with respect to compensation for improvements; but only as an alternative to a lease, or a lease for less than thirty-one years, and every landlord who might grant a lease for that period freed himself from all claims for compensation. The effect of that measure would have been to compel landlords in their own defence to give leases; and it only provided such a certainty of tenure as would be required by any farmer in Scotland as a security for the investment of his capital and labour. In his opinion, the Bill of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) involved precisely the same principle. The third section of it enacted that all contracts respecting land should be in writing; and this obviously implied a lease, for no landlord would be at the trouble of a written agreement with each one of his tenants every year. The Bill also proposed that landlords who gave no leases should not have the benefit of that cheap court for the settlement of disputes which it provided in other cases—thus driving them to an action in the Superior Courts. It required them, too, to give a twelvemonth's notice to quit before bringing an action of ejectment; and it empowered the Judge who might try any of these actions to award costs against the party who should appear to have been in fault with regard to the absence of a lease. Of course, the fault would always rest with the landlord. He had not cited these clauses as an objection to the Bill, but simply to show that it was not of so voluntary a character as it had been described by his noble Friend, and that its tendency would be to oblige landlords to give leases. A measure had been introduced into the other House by his hon. and learned Friend Sir Colman O'Loghlen, enacting that in cases where there was no evidence of a lease the courts should presume, not a yearly tenancy, but a lease for a fixed number of years. When therefore he found the principle of compelling landlords to give leases pervading all three of the Bills to which he had referred, and which had emanated from different quarters, he could not help thinking that the satisfactory settlement of this vexed question was not far distant. That principle, moreover, was no new one; for the Statute of Frauds, as far back as the time of Charles II., enacted that all agreements affecting land for a certain term of years should be in writing; and he believed that its operation 1327 would be attended with salutary results. No good cultivation could go on where the tenure was involved in uncertainty. It was needless for him to prove that a lease would be beneficial to the occupier; and he could speak from his own experience of the benefit which would follow to the landlord. He had always entertained a strong feeling with reference to this question; and he was sure that unless something was done to satisfy the craving for legislation on the subject peace and satisfaction would never exist in Ireland; but he believed this desirable result might be obtained without any undue interference with the rights of property. The few observations which he had made were dictated by the most friendly spirit to the Bill of the noble Marquess. He was glad to hear that it was to be referred to a Select Committee; and if the noble Marquess could make the gentle pressure on the landlords a little more vigorous, he should be glad to give the Bill his support.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
said, their Lordships would agree with him that great credit was due to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) for the pains he had evidently taken in dealing with this intricate question, and producing, he would not say a Bill, but a regular code on the subject of Irish land tenure. Their Lordships were aware that Her Majesty's Government had brought a Bill into the other House; but, as it had not yet reached their Lordships, it would be irregular on his part to enter into its details. He thought the safest and best course for their Lordships to adopt was to allow this Bill to pass a second reading. To that the Government had no objection, guarding the objectives, however, that it should be without prejudice to their own Bill. When the measure of the Government came up to their Lordships' House it would then be time to consider whether it would not be desirable to read it the second time, and then refer both Bills to the same Select Committee. All that he wished to say further was, that the Government felt the great importance of this subject. It was one which had occupied the attention of Parliament Session after Session, and much disappointment had been felt that the question had not been settled. Considering the number of Bills on the subject now under discussion, he trusted that they would be able at length to frame a satisfactory measure.