§ MR. O'BEIRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he would give Instructions to the Commission he proposed to appoint with reference to Land Tenure to inquire into and report on the best means, whether by Government aid or otherwise, of encouraging and assisting the creation of an independent proprietary of small freehold estates in Ireland? He was unwilling at so late a period of the Session to enter at any great length into the subject of which he had given Notice, but he would briefly refer to some statements some time since made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Mayo), and upon which he (the noble Earl) seemed to rely in support of his assurance to the House of the advancing prosperity of Ireland. He would refer to two or three broad facts which would be sufficient to sustain his views, and he would support those facts from figures taken from the noble Earl's own statement, or from the Return lately moved for by him (Mr. O'Beirne), and now on the table of the House. The noble Earl, he believed, was simply in error in the assurance he gave of the immense and daily increasing advance of Ireland in wealth and prosperity, as a very few examples would show. Taking for instance the state of the Savings Banks deposits, in 1847, certainly a year not very famed for its happy recollections, but still a remarkable year in Ireland's history, the deposits amounted to the sum of £2,410,000, while in the year 1866, twenty-one years afterwards, they only reached £1,540,500. Well, what said the emigration Returns? In 1850 there were 80,000 emigrants, in 1863 there were 117,000, and the average of the four years up to 1867 was over; 100,000 in each year. If they turned to the state of the population they found that at the Union the people numbered over 5,000,000. The population steadily increased up to 1846, until within the period of forty-five years it had reached 8,287,848. But when they looked at the Census of 1865 they found that plague and famine had fearfully done their sad work, and the population had fallen to 5,641,000; and he deeply regretted to add that it continued to decrease, the last Return showing that in 1867 it had fallen to 5,557,000. Now, it did seem to him strange that with three such striking facts before him the noble Earl could find any 1412 ground for his statement that prosperity was making such advances throughout Ireland. Suppose they looked to neighbouring nations as a test. They saw in Germany an increase, during a less period, of 90 per cent; in Russia 90 per cent; in Austria 80 per cent; in France 50 per cent; and in England 120 per cent. Would it be contended that decrease in population was to be accepted in Ireland as a proof of improvement? If so, they should be informed upon what principle of argument so singular a doctrine could be sustained. He next came to the subject of the condition and relief of the poor, and he found that in 1856, twelve years since, the sum expended in the relief of that class was £576,300. The amount decreased in 1857 and 1858, but in 1861 it began to increase; in 1862 it was £578,789; in 1863, £605,981; in 1864, £596,465; and in 1866, £611,891. Now, in connection with this branch of the question, this very remarkable fact appeared—that the population in 1857 amounted to 6,047,492, while in 1866 it had fallen to 5,582,625; so that a smaller population in 1866 required a much larger outlay to relieve them than the population in 1857 required, and certainly, so far as he (Mr. O'Beirne) could read such figures, there was no evidence of advancement to be found in them. But although he differed so widely from the noble Earl in his conclusions, he was not unwilling to admit the fact—and there was some hope of the future to be found in it—that the country was not losing ground. What he complained of was that remarks which had the effect of producing erroneous impressions upon the minds of hon. Members should be made. He (Mr. O'Beirne) for his part contended, and he believed it was beyond doubt, that Ireland had not kept pace with England, Scotland, and Wales; and, therefore, there must be something wrong—some reason for her backward state. That reason he desired to discover, and, so far as his humble efforts would admit, to apply a remedy. But before he came to the remedy which he advocated, he would allude to the valuation of the surface of land under crops, and used as a productive medium. The noble Earl had told the House that in 1841, the date of the first valuation, there were 13,461,000 acres productive, which were valued at £13,215,000. He also stated that in 1856 the acreage had increased to 15,000,000, or nearly 2,000,000 in excess of 1841. 1413 But the noble Earl stopped there; he did not inform the House what the valuation of this 15,000,000 acres in 1856 amounted to. That figure could, however, be found in his (Mr. O'Beirne's) late Return, and, singular to say, it did not exceed £12,989,000, and in that sum should be included the value of some £26,000,000 of railway property which did not exist in 1841, and which could not amount to much less than £500,000 a year. This was, he submitted, rather a startling result; 2,000,000 acres in 1856 in excess of; those in 1841; and yet with the addition of the railway property, valued at up-wards of £200,000 a year, less than the 13,461,000 acres in 1841. Did this show a great advance in prosperity in agriculture or commerce? He would not go further into the figures he had prepared, as he thought the House would agree with him in considering that the picture drawn by the noble Earl of the immense advances which had been for the last twenty years made in Ireland was not borne out by the real facts. But that the condition of the land tenure and relations between landlord and tenant were eminently unsatisfactory had been admitted by the noble Earl, and indeed he had himself proposed and promised to issue a Commission to inquire into the whole question. As that point of the subject was that to which his Motion pointed most directly, he must say that he rejoiced at the prospect of that inquiry, and for his part he should accept it at the hands of the Government most willingly. He had no reason to doubt that the Commission would be well and efficiently composed, and that its inquiries would be large, searching, and satisfactory. The result would, in that case, he felt assured, produce results to all of a very useful and beneficial character. It was so many years since the last Commission, under the able presidency of the Earl of Devon, took its evidence and made its valuable Report, that its recommendations and findings could scarcely now be considered as very applicable, so large had been the change in the interim. Therefore, it did seem that the time was come when much valuable information might be obtained by a new and well-conducted inquiry. Then the subject of ejectments was one which required attention and inquiry, and well-considered legislation as the result of that inquiry. The right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) had stated, on a previous occasion, that he had never 1414 yet heard a well-authenticated case of injustice and cruelty on the part of landlord to his tenant, and that in point of fact the complaints so often made and repeated in that House were, if not fictitious, little more than imaginary. Now, besides the indignant language of the late Master of the Rolls, in giving judgment on a case before him, the Return recently moved for by Lord Belmore showed that for the last ten years the average of ejectments was 6,000 a year, giving a total of at least 30,000 persons turned on the roadside annually. These facts showed the absolute necessity of dealing with this important question. He would not trouble the House by making these extracts from the voluminous authorities to whom he could refer in support of the particular system of small freehold proprietors, which he so earnestly advocated. But he would refer to one circumstance which was on the Records of the House, and upon which he thought he might rely in support of his position. It was this—that some years since Sir Matthew Barrington, a member—and a most distinguished member—of the legal profession in Ireland, being impressed with the unsatisfactory state of the tenure of land in that country, associated himself with Lord Devon and several other influential persons, amongst whom was the late Sir Robert Peel, and they introduced a Bill in that House giving authority for the promotion of a private company to carry the principle of establishing small proprietors into operation, believing, as it appeared from their evidence before the Committee to which that Bill was referred, that such a measure was eminently calculated to elevate and improve the people, and to foster loyalty and a closer union with Great Britain. The Chairman of that Committee was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), and he was requested by the Committee to make a special Report to the House in the following words:—
That on account of the important consideration of public policy which this Bill appeared to involve, they have directed him to move the House that the Bill be re-committed to the Whole House and be printed, with the evidence upon it, for the use of Members.The Bill was re-committed and passed through that House and the other House unanimously, and on the 31st of August, 1848, it became law. He would read what the Preamble of that Bill said, and hon. 1415 Members would bear in mind that it was now upon the statute book of the kingdom as the expression of the united opinion of the Legislature and the Crown.Whereas, the formation and the establishment of a permanent body of independent yeomen, consisting of resident proprietors, holding farms in fee simple, containing respectively not less than thirty acres, would materially improve the social condition of Ireland by promoting the better cultivation of land, the reclamation of waste lands, and by personally interesting a large proportion of the population in the preservation of peace and order; and whereas there are many persons in Ireland possessing a limited amount of capital which they would gladly employ in the purchase of land if facilities were given for the transfer of estates or portions thereof, be it enacted," &c.Now, that Preamble, both in spirit and in language, expressed his full meaning. He did not desire to add anything more. That was the entire of his case. He believed it was admitted by many that the measure would largely facilitate the transfer of land, and tend to unite the people in feelings and in sympathy with this country. He would not quote any further; he would merely allude to the opinions of some intelligent and practical men who had lately published their views on the subject, and to whom he was indebted for much information. Amongst them he would mention Mr. Butler, a gentleman living in Tipperary, who lately examined this question himself, and found the plan working admirably in our possessions, the Channel Islands; Mr. Hutton also, a gentleman who had written a very able pamphlet on the subject, giving an excellent description of the Prussian system; Mr. Fisher, and many others. The unqualified conclusion of those gentlemen was that the introduction of such a class of owners into the country would be of the greatest possible importance in every respect—socially, politically, and in an agricultural sense. Last year the noble Earl the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in opposing a Motion which he (Mr. O'Beirne) made of a different character, but on the same subject, took several objections to the principle. The first was that under the Landed Estates Court means at present existed for purchasing small estates where there was any desire to do so. He had since then carefully examined the Landed Estates Court Advertiser, and had made sufficient inquiries. The result justified him in stating that the noble Earl was entirely misinformed, and that no such facilities in fact existed. Another of the noble Earl's 1416 objections was that this principle did not succeed in European countries where it existed. To this he could only reply that he had sought for information from the registries of countries where this principle was in large operation, and that he was assured it acted most beneficially. In fact, the result of the information he had gathered justified him in differing altogether from the noble Earl in the opinions he had expressed. But all he asked was a careful and honest inquiry. He asked that Instructions might be given to the Commission to examine this large and, in his estimate, this most important question. He had no wish to thrust it down the throat of Parliament. He merely demanded a fair hearing for a principle advocated—warmly supported, he would say—by so many able, intelligent, and practical men—men who had applied their minds earnestly to the tenure of land in Ireland, and whose opinions on that subject were entitled to respect and consideration. The noble Earl might be right in his view, and he might be entirely and completely wrong. He accepted the issue—he invited the inquiry. If there were no merit in the principle let it be so decided, and then let it be cast aside, and the House no longer troubled with the consideration of it. But if the proposal were found to justify the views of those who advocated it—if the Commission should come to the conclusion that it would be a useful measure, and was likely to work out the beneficial effects ascribed to it, he asked for an assurance that then it would be promptly accepted and taken up, that the Government would aid in carrying it out, that the Irish people might at length hope to see a remedy within their reach which, without outraging any of the known principles of political economy, would confer upon them a great and lasting benefit.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, the hon. Gentleman had entered upon a very large question, and had brought forward matters which required much more extensive discussion than could be given to them that night. He had not been aware from the Notice on the Paper that the hon. Gentleman meant to do more than ask a Question. Had he known that it was intended to impugn the statements he made on a former occasion, he would have been fully prepared to vindicate them. The facts and figures he had then stated had been before the country for a considerable time; and on no one 1417 substantial point had they been disputed. He had given no glowing or exaggerated description of Ireland; but he had shown what, if the hon. Gentleman had resided as much in the country as he had done be would have known—that the country had been steadily improving for the last thirty years. He was not prepared to say that at many times during that period there had not been causes which tended to create much uneasiness and alarm, and that still in many respects the state of things was not satisfactory. But what he proved was this, that for a certain number of years there had been a steady, gradual, and wholesome improvement in the state of every industry and of every class, all indicative of a really healthy condition; and he believed the more the subject was studied the more that improvement; would become manifest. He did not say that any miracles had been wrought—he did not believe that; or that there was not enormous room for great improvement for the future. The Poor Law Commissioners in their last Report said that the rags of the people had disappeared; that they were healthy and well dressed, and that when coming from church on Sunday they looked clean and comfortable. They also said that the character of the houses had improved—that the dwellings were more healthy than those of the labourers in this country. The dreadful epidemic diseases that so frequently ravaged Ireland twenty years ago had entirely disappeared, while the general health of the people had greatly improved. They did not require statistics; everybody who lived in the country was aware of the fact that the condition of the poorer classes of Ireland had been for a considerable time gradually improving; and he believed that the improvement would continue. With regard to the particular question of the hon. Gentleman, he had to state that the Instructions to that Commission would be identical with those given to the Devon Commission—namely, to inquire into the whole system of tenure in Ireland; and therefore they would be at liberty to inquire into the vexed question whether small or large holdings were the most suitable for the wants of the people; and he had every reason to believe that the Commission he proposed to appoint would devote considerable attention to the point. He did not personally anticipate that any peculiarly satisfactory results would be obtained from creating a large class of small 1418 landholders; but still the subject was a fair one for further inquiry. He believed that the notion that very small holdings contributed to the prosperity of a country had been long exploded, and that it was now felt that if a man was to hold land at all he ought to be in the position of a farmer holding a sufficient quantity of land to sustain himself and his family. He thought that the proper policy for Parliament to pursue with reference to the question was to remove all obstructions to the purchase of land by small capitalists who might desire to invest their money in such property, but not to undertake any special legislation like that asked for by the hon. Member. He believed that the difficulties that now existed in Ireland in the way of small capitalists investing in land had been greatly exaggerated, and that by combining together, and by other means, purchasers could obtain small quantities of land at a reasonable rate. The Incumbered Estates Court were bound to sell the land to the best advantage; and if small capitalists could give a good price for small lots, they would easily become its purchasers. He must, however, admit that the working of the Incumbered Estates Courts had not been entirely successful, as it had enabled some persons to buy up the estates at low prices for the purpose of re-selling them. At the same time he felt that these were all subjects for inquiry, and he thought that the result of the Report of the Commission he proposed to appoint would be to remove a great deal of misapprehension from the public mind upon this subject.
§ SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, it would be in the memory of the House that, shortly after the General Election, amongst the first steps taken by the Irish Secretary of the then Government (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) was the introduction of a Bill dealing with the question of landlord and tenant in Ireland, proposing to give some approach to secure tenure to the people. That Bill was energetically opposed by the party with whom the noble Earl acts in this House, and by none more energetically than by the noble Earl himself. [The Earl of MAYO: I only opposed one clause in the Bill.] The noble Earl not only objected to one particular clause, but he opposed the second reading in a very long and most energetic speech, and if he (Sir John Gray) rightly remembered he described it to the House as a confiscation Bill designed to spoliate the property of the landlords, and the noble Earl succeeded in 1419 his opposition, and prevented the Bill from being read the second time. Then when the noble Earl himself came into Office, he brought in a Bill which was heralded by his friends as the perfection of legislative wisdom. But he never proceeded with that Bill, and let the question drop, though he pledged himself to the House that he and his party were fully informed upon the subject, and quite capable of settling it without further delay. Now, however, at the expiration of the Parliament, he and his party tell us they must have more delay, they must have another Commission, and must have more knowledge before they can deal with this great question. They were to have another Land Commission issued, based on the model of the Devon Commission, which was issued four-and-twenty years ago, and which ended in nothing. They were now to have another based on a precisely similar model, which would, no doubt, terminate in the same way. The noble Earl spoke of the advisability of inquiry into the extent of and on which a peasant-farmer might live, and said that would constitute a feature of the promised Commission. The Irish people wanted no such inquiry—they could determine that for themselves. Each man could best ascertain how much or how little land suited his requirements. The Adjustment they wanted was an adjustment as to tenure, and not as to extent of the holding. The tenant-farmers ask you not for inquiry, but for security. They want secure tenure—they want a firm foothold in the land they occupy and till—they want that neither political malice, nor religious rancour, nor personal caprice shall have the power to thrust them, their wives and children, out on the road-side; and to do this no inquiry is needed, and no delay should be countenanced or encouraged. He (Sir John Gray) then protested altogether against this Commission—it was a delusion, and would end in postponement and disappointment.