§ Order for Committee read.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
§ VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, that in the absence of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), he should move that the second Bill upon the paper (the Metropolis Local Management Bill) take precedence of the Bill now before the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the proper form was for the noble Lord to move that the debate be adjourned.
§ VISCOUNT GALWAYaccordingly moved the adjournment of the debate.
§ SIR JOHN V. SHELLEYsaid, he thought that the House ought to have some consideration for Mr. Speaker, who had occupied the Chair until past two o'clock on that morning. If the debate went on 2231 there would be no chance of getting the right hon. Gentleman out of the chair until four o'clock, and then at six o'clock he would have to take the chair for the evening sitting. He thought this was rather too hard upon the right hon. Gentleman, and that the morning sitting ought to be confined to Bills in which progress could be made in Committee.
MR. MAGUIRELsaid, that the Bill now about to be brought forward had been before the House in one shape or another for the last twenty years. It was of a thousand times more importance than the Metropolitan Management Bill; and much as he sympathised with the Speaker, he should persevere in thinking the Bill ought to be proceeded with.
§ MR. HORSMANsaid, he must beg to explain that it was only proposed that the first thirteen clauses of the Bill should be taken at the morning sitting. Those clauses related only to prospective compensation, about which, he believed, there was no difference of opinion. With regard to the other principle involved in the Bill, that of retrospective compensation, an appeal had been made to him by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. McMahon), and by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), who represented that the fourteenth clause, which involved that very important principle, ought to be debated at an evening sitting, as some gentlemen of the legal profession, who were anxious to take part in its discussion, could not be present in the morning. He (Mr. Horsman) communicated with the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who authorised him to assent to their suggestion; and the Government arranged to give Thursday evening to the discussion of that 14th clause. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord opposite and his friends would hardly take the unusual course of preventing the Government from pursuing their own course with their own Bills. As for the Amendment, of which notice had been given by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Peacocke), it was in itself an irregularity, as it would be raising a discussion in Committee on the principle of the Bill, which had already been raised and disposed of, a majority of 160 to 50 being in its favour upon the occasion of the second reading. If it were the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman to raise the question of retrospective compensation, he might raise it more properly on Thurs- 2232 day evening, when the fourteenth clause came to be discussed.
§ MR. NAPIERsaid, he would beg to point out that it was of the greatest importance that this question should be settled as soon as possible, for it was doing great mischief in Ireland to leave it in its present state.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was not aware of any such arrangement between the Government and the Opposition side of the House as the Chief Secretary for Ireland had described. He objected on principle to this Bill, as it would give rise to practices of evasion and fraud.
§ SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, that he was one of those who objected to the prospective, as well as to the retrospective operation of this Bill; and he thought the principle had not yet been sufficiently argued. He saw no reason why the relation of landlord and tenant should be so entirely altered in Ireland. It was now half-past one o'clock, and he would ask was there any chance of making any progress with the clauses? The Metropolitan Local Management Bill had already been in Committee, and some progress might be made with it.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he wished the House to decide at once whether the Bill should go into Committee then, or be postponed; if hon. Gentlemen persisted in debating the principle of the Bill at that moment, the whole morning would be wasted.
§ Motion made and Question put "That the debate be now adjourned."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 117: Majority 52.
§ Question again proposed "That the Speaker do now leave the chair."
§ MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he rose pursuant to notice, to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill upon that day three months. Considering that property to the extent of 15,000,000l. had changed hands under the Encumbered Estates Court, and that these purchases had been made under the sanction of a Parliamentary title, and subject to no liabilities except what were set forth at the time, he could not consent to saddle these purchasers with encumbrances that to a very considerable extent would be imposed upon them by the Bill now under discussion. It seemed that about forty Irish Members were in favour of this Bill, and that to obtain their support the noble Lord at the head of the Government regarded the great interests involved in this Bill 2233 as trivialities comparatively unworthy of his attention. He wag strongly opposed, not only to the retrospective, but also to the prospective clauses of the Bill, and he could not but admire the calm and placid indifference of English landlords when witnessing the application of a principle to which, in their own cases, they would strongly object. If there were a people that more than another wanted, it was said, to be taught that they ought to rely upon their own exertions, and not look to Parliamentary aid and interference, it was the Irish nation and people. This was no grand original theory that had never been tried, for this principle of compensation had been tried and signally failed in some parts of England. Where the practice prevailed as in parts of Surrey and Sussex, under the name of an inventory, it was the curse of the country; it exhausted the capital of the incoming tenant, and was a main cause of the inferior cultivation of the soil in those districts. By this absurd and bungling stroke of legislation they proposed to convert the landlord in Ireland into the nominal owner of his property. They would create a class of encumbered proprietors, and saddle them with liabilities that they never expected, and they would include in this class those who had purchased their estates under the operation of the Encumbered Estates Court, and who were at the present time working out the regeneration of Ireland. If this Bill once passed they would hear little more of the introduction of fresh capital and enterprise in Ireland, for it would require something more than ordinary courage to introduce capital into Ireland after the passing of this Bill. This grand measure for the regeneration of Ireland was a fair specimen of the political quackery with which that country had been habitually regenerated. We were told that capitalists were the great desideratum for Ireland; and they proposed to drive them out. We were told that middlemen were the great curse of the soil; and they proposed to bring them in. We were told that the evil of her social system arose from her complicated land tenure; and, instead of simplifying, they proposed to complicate it still further. We were told that that complicated land tenure arose from penal laws and confiscation. How did they propose to remedy it? By adding one confiscation more. We were told that England and Ireland should be governed by the same and equal laws. They now pro- 2234 posed to constitute one code for Ireland and another for England. We were told that her people should be taught the doctrine of self-reliance; and they now taught her peasantry that Parliament was ready and willing to interfere in their behalf, even to the extent of spoliation. He considered that the very entertaining this question was pernicious to the prosperity of Ireland. They excited futile hopes and paralysed self-exertion. The laws of political economy had never been violated with impunity, and never would be; and, above all, they were not to be violated for the sake of an empiric measure like the present, which, weakly assented to by a weak Government, was powerless for good and powerful for evil. If they really wished to benefit Ireland they must reverse their policy; they must legislate upon principle, they must not legislate for cries; for, by the strong and firm administration of just and equal laws they could alone hope to rescue her from the reproach which had been but too truthfully addressed by their ablest historian—that she was indeed a member of the empire, but a withered and distorted member, adding no strength to the body politic, and reproachfully pointed at by all who feared the greatness or envied the glory of England.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he must appeal to the House not to enter upon any discussion of the principle of the Bill, but to take the advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Napier) and allow the House to go into Committee. The principle of the Bill had been affirmed by both Houses of Parliament, and by successive Governments. The second reading had been carried by a majority of 163 to 51, and he trusted that those hon. Members who were anxious for the progress of the Bill would abstain from discussing the question, and agree to consider the clauses in Committee.
§ SIR JOHN WALSHsaid he could not subscribe to the principle enunciated by the right hon. Baronet, that because a previous division upon this subject had taken place in both Houses of Parliament, hon. Gentlemen, who might upon that occasion have happened to be in the minority, 2235 were to be precluded from reurging their opinions upon a subsequent occasion. Such a doctrine appeared to him to be subversive of all the rights of a minority; for according to that doctrine a minority must never speak again, or renew a question once determined against them. Had this principle, he would inquire, been heretofore applied to Catholic emancipation, parliamentary reform, or the ballot? On the contrary, the opinion of a minority had been repeatedly carried by perseverance; and the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Baronet was destructive of representative Government and the rights of free discussion. The right hon. Baronet said, the opinion of the House had been taken on the second reading. On that occasion the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. McMahon) had spoken ably against the Bill, but had not divided or even moved an Amendment, consequently the division was taken by surprise and without previous expectation of it, and the opinion of the House had not been fairly tested. Although, therefore, the Amendment was now slightly irregular, it was not open to the reproach of being obstructive or improper, but was only for the purpose of securing a fair and proper discussion of the question. Great subjects of this nature were not adequately discussed and disposed of at these morning sittings, and therefore he had voted for the postponement of the debate. The morning sittings could not be properly attended, and to bring forward such Bills at those sittings was not fair. He did not think that English Members ought to be excluded from entering into the discussion of Irish measures. As the retrospective clauses were to form the subject of a future discussion he should confine himself at present to the prospective enactments. The prospective portion of the Bill had by no means been disposed of by prior discussions. Indeed, he did not quite understand the present position of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) had brought in a Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman the Irish Secretary had offered to adopt it if certain modifications were consented to. This offer was conditional entirely. Subsequently the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord C. Hamilton) asked a question, to which the hon. and learned Serjeant replied discreetly that he was ready to place the Bill in the hands of the Government, but declined to adopt 2236 the Amendments to be proposed, reserving the right of an independent Member, and inserting in the Votes notices of Amendments contrary in spirit to the conditional proposal of the Secretary for Ireland. Therefore the hon. and learned Serjeant and the Secretary for Ireland were at issue and had come to no agreement. The tenant-right party, on the other hand, were quite discontented both with the measure of the hon. and learned Serjeant and with that of the Government. Therefore this measure, which Was to restore peace to Ireland, was repudiated and rejected by all parties. What prospect was there of arriving at a satisfactory settlement of the question by passing the measure? The Government would not deny that this was a great departure from sound principles on the subject. The laws of property were, for special and partial purposes, to be departed from, and the principles of justice violated. The question was argued on special grounds, and on the peculiar character of Irish landlords or of the Irish laws. But there were peculiarities in the Irish tenants not less than Irish landlords. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had eulogised the tenantry of Ireland, and declared that with due encouragement they were industrious and improving. Hs (Sir J. Walsh) agreed in this opinion in general, but in England, Scotland, and Wales, and not less so in Ireland, there were indolent, litigious, and fraudulent tenants; and there were more tenants of that kind in Ireland than in England. His objection to the prospective clauses was, that they were not only not necessary, but that they put into the hands of the tenant a weapon with which he might fight his landlord and hold him at bay. He objected to the system of notices, because they assumed that landlords had neither any interest in the improvements nor control over them, whereas the landlord was a much better judge of what improvements were required, and was more fit to superintend them than the tenant. He denied that the landlords in Ireland were a mere rentcharge on the estates; on the contrary, they were often great improvers themselves, guiding their tenants in the right direction, and exercising a salutary control over them. Improvement on estates ought to be a subject of mutual consultation and agreement between landlord and tenant. For instance, it might be very convenient to a tenant 2237 that a road through his farm should be made, and he might give notice of such an improvement; but the landlord of the estate might, on examination, find that a road in another direction Would not only accommodate that particular farm, hut half a dozen others. Under this Bill, however, a hostile tenant would be able to press his own improvement to the detriment of the general improvement of the estate. In point of fact, the provisions of the Bill would have the effect of handing the estate over to the tenant, securing the landlord a mere rentcharge. It had been said that the principle of the Amendments had been adopted by more than one Government, but the fact was that these prospective clauses had been pressed on them by the Organised efforts of a numerous body of Members whose votes were useful to the Government, and it was a reflection upon the present state of representative government in this country that this question should, by a sort of juggle of parties, be suffered to attain a proportion which it never ought to have arrived at, being forced on the Government because it was a matter of essential interest to them to enlist the support of a section of the House. For these reasons he should support the Amendment.
§ MR. I. BUTTsaid, he considered that the House was bound to let the Bill go into Committee, and try and amend it; or, failing in that to reject it on the third reading. It had been argued that this was a revolutionary and novel Bill. Why, in its principles and details it was similar to that laid upon the table by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) the late Attorney General for Ireland, heralded by publications under his auspices, and sanctioning the retrospective principle. And yet the opposition to the Bill was now put entirely upon that principle. On the introduction of the Bill by his right hon. and learned Friend, his hon. Friend (Mr. Grogan) had not objected to the retrospective principle, and had declared, "that the measure would give general satisfaction." That was a Bill containing the retrospective principle. Principles of this kind ought not to be made the instruments of party; and the Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a pledge td the tenantry of Ireland that its principles should be carried out. Those Members who now opposed the Bill should have resisted it on that occasion, and not allowed such a pledge to be given, which now compelled him to 2238 vote for the going into Committee. Those who resisted it must pretend that a principle Was right in the hands of one Gentleman (Mr. Napier), and revolutionary in another.
§ MR. GEORGEsaid, he was ready to go into Committee on the portions of the Bill not objectionable in principle, and he had prepared Amendments upon the prospective clauses. But he had never approved of the retrospective clauses, and when his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Napier) introduced his Bill he had objected to that principle. Nor had he consented to the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) going to a Committee. He was prepared, however, to agree to the prospective portions of the Bill, and to redeem his pledge by going into Committee upon them. He had given credit to his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Napier) for skill and learning in the preparation of his Bill, but had never pledged himself to its details.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he, at all events, had never approved of the principle of the Bill, which he considered would be very prejudicial to Ireland, The principle of giving a tenant money to be laid out in improvements, with the consent of his landlord was right; but the Bill went to a most iniquitous extent, and the principle enunciated by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) had been repudiated throughout the country. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had no confidence in his Bill, and showed himself insincere in its support by the Amendments he proposed, confining it to the most narrow limits. The Whole affair, he believed, was a mere traffic in party support. It was his opinion that its only object was to gain temporary popularity, which would not be gained, because of the insincerity which was shown by the Government. How did the Government intend the Bill to work as to existing contracts? Were new contracts to be made? The old contracts were made on the supposition that improvements were not made by the landlord. The provisions of the Bill were wholly unsatisfactory and unintelligible, and he defied the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland to explain them. They Would be a fertile source of litigation, and bad feeling would be created between landlord and tenant.
§ MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he was surprised that the supporters of the Bill did not rise to uphold it. Great principles were in- 2239 volved in the Bill, and which ought not to be made playthings of party. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt) had referred to the Bill brought in by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) in 1852, but that did not bind Members not in the House at that time, added to which, the principles laid down by the Irish Attorney General were most monstrous and pernicious.
§ MR. RICEsaid, he was decidedly of opinion that the principle involved in the various clauses of the Bill ought to undergo full consideration; and therefore it was most necessary that they should go into Committee.
§ Question put, "that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 46: Majority 83.
§ Main Question put and agreed to.
§ House in Committee, Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
§ The preamble was postponed.
§ Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
§ Clause 3
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he would beg to move the addition of words limiting the application of the clause to improvements made during existing tenancies, with the view of avoiding litigation as to improvements made during tenancies which have already expired. He also would propose to add a proviso that persons holding under leases should not be entitled to claim compensation for improvements made after the passing of the Bill without the consent in writing of the landlord for the time being.
§ MR. FRENCHsaid, he should oppose the addition of the words, as calculated to sweep away the whole system of tenant-right in Ulster.
§ MR. HORSMANsaid, he thought the proposal would apply with greater accuracy to the 14th clause. He would, therefore, suggest that notice should be given of the addition, as the words opened up an important question, which he did not think the Committee was at this moment in a position to consider.
§ MR. GEORGEsaid, he thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) was included in words which he (Mr. George) had given notice of as an Amendment on the 14th clause.
§ MR. CAIRNSsaid, he feared that the Committee were premature in considering this Amendment at this portion of the Bill.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ On Clause 4.
§ House resumed; Committee report progress.