§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Part III. Advances by and Powers of Board.
§ Clause 39 (Advances to landlords for compensation for improvements).
§ Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 34, before "board" to insert "Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, in this Act referred to as the."—(Mr. Dowse.)
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he wished to ask whether the Government had formed any estimate of the sum that would be required to be placed at the disposal of the Board of Works in Ireland for the purposes contemplated by the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman opposite had referred to a sum of £1,000,000 as a preliminary amount only.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, they must reserve to Parliament the ultimate decision of the question—in case they found a disposition in Ireland to act very extensively on those provisions—how far it would be wise to go in that direction. On the other hand, they did not wish to convey to the people of Ireland that £1,000,000 was the only sum that would be disposable for those objects. There was so much which was experimental in those provisions that it would be desirable at first to provide a moderate sum 745 to meet any early demand that might arise, after which, the matter could again be brought before Parliament with improved means of forming a judgment upon it. The Board of Works in Ireland was subordinate to the Treasury, whose duty it would be to see that no engagement was entered into by the Board of Works on its own responsibility, apart from the sanction of the higher Department of the Government.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, he would propose to leave out £6 10s., and insert £5 as the annual rate of payment in respect of the proposed advances, increasing the time of payment from 22 to 35 years as in other cases of advances of public money in Ireland under 29 & 30 Vict. c. 40, p. 6. He, therefore, moved in page 20, lines 39 and 40, to leave out "six pounds ten shillings" and insert "five pounds."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it had been suggested that there should be different rates under different clauses of this Bill; but it should be borne in mind that they had already provided in one clause for a rate of £7 1s. 8d., and in another for a rate of £6 10s. The most important class of advances were those which were to be made to the tenants, for as to the landlords, who were of course capitalists, it was comparatively unimportant whether the advances were repayable in 22 or 35 years; but it was exceedingly important in the case of tenants. What he proposed was, that they should for the present leave the figures as they were in the clause, until upon Clause 41 they had ascertained the opinion of the Committee in reference to the tenant question, whether it was desirable that the advances should be repaid in 22 years or 35 years. They could then also ascertain the general feeling as to advances to landlords, in reference to whom the Government would be sorry to act harshly or illiberally.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 40 (Advances to landlords for improvement of waste lands).
§ SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEsaid, he would propose an Amendment, to the effect that advances might be made to landlords and tenants jointly, or to tenants, with the written consent of the landlord, for the erection of new 746 or the improvement of existing farm houses, buildings, and out-offices, and for the efficient drainage of the land, the sum not to exceed £200 for every £30 of annual value. There were no doubt already powers to make such advances to landlords for these purposes, but they were very much hampered by regulations which had been made by the Board of Works, so that since 1847 the number of applications under the existing Act were only 5,523.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he must object to the Amendment not upon its merits, but upon the ground that this was not the clause on which to propose such an Amendment, and that, moreover, it was undesirable to encumber the Bill with additional provisions, the Government having undertaken enough in the Bill as it stood.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 41 (Advances to tenants for purchase of holdings).
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he would beg to move in page 21, line 19, after "board" to insert "if they are satisfied with the security," so that the Board should have power to consider the value of the security offered.
§ MR. CORRANCESir, before this Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is put, I must venture to remark that in these words—namely, that if the Government are satisfied with the security, they shall make the advance, lies the whole question. Ought they to be satisfied? And with what? To this, before this scheme gain the assent of this House, I must be permitted in some stage or other to express my most emphatic dissent. Up to this time, in the character, as the hon. Member for Waterford has called it of an enlightened agriculturist—and there is no character I would, if I could do so justly, more gladly accept—I have body in Ireland, from my own point of steadily advocated the interests of that view at least. But in the measure we now discuss, I fear I may find myself in opposition to Irish landlords, and, possibly, Irish tenants as well; and it must be as an Englishman, with no pretension to enlightenment, that I must review this case. To understand it a very little enlightenment will suffice. Through this clause we ascertain the promising 747 scheme sketched out in the preceding clauses is to be carried out. To that entire scheme I must give my emphatic dissent, and for these reasons. How is this money to be raised? That is the first question which must occur to most of us. It must either be voted as an annual Estimate or advanced as a loan. Let us consider it in either case. In the first place it is the British taxpayer who must find the money directly. What right can any Government have to do this? What possible pretence can there be to take money out of my pocket to lend, however advantageously, to my neighbour? Cast aside political reasoning, violate common sense, but do not reverse public morality and common justice by such an act as this. If I am a trader, then you deprive me of money I employ to much better effect. If a professional man, you rob me without compensation, and if I am a landlord—English or Irish—you take from me the money to buy up my own estate. Well, but you will not do it that way. You can raise the money by loan, and there will then be no loss. Let us see this. Capitalists will advance you the money, say at 4 per cent. What would they charge the Irish tenant himself without the security of the State? Well, 10 or 20 per cent, no doubt. That represents their sense of the security, no doubt; high interest means risk. You back his bill, and that is exactly the difference of the risk you take. Is that a fair bargain for the British taxpayer or not? for it will fall on him at last. Is it a just measure of the risks? Well, I think it is, for I do not believe in the success of the speculation itself. The thing has often been tried, and never with success. It was tried in France after the Revolution; and I would beg hon. Gentlemen to read Von Sybel's account. It was tried in America, and what was the result? Let me refer hon. Gentlemen to Sir Charles Lyell's account of it in his first and second visit to America. Why, the proceeding was precisely analogous; and what took place? The borrower used every means, fair and foul, to cheat the State, and at last it was settled by force. The troops were called out, and it went under the name of the Albany War, and is so described in that book. The money was advanced in assignats, and proprietors created en masse. Twenty-five years after the proprietors were extinct, and 748 there was famine through the exhausted land. In India something of the same sort was done with equal or less success. If the county is wealthy, it will revert to the old proprietors; if it is poor, it will be irretrievably ruined. And if this is its social and commercial, what will be its political effect? The landlord becomes the State practically to every intent. Every year they must collect what is practically their rent. What will occur in such a case? The first bad season there must be an arrear, of course. Can the Government enforce payment of this? and by what means will it evict and compensate, under the provisions of this Act, the tenant for disturbance and excessive rent? Through what Court or officer will it act? We lack information upon these points—information which it is in the power of Her Majesty's Government to give, if they wish. There is at least one who ought to be consulted upon this point—one who will, or may have, to find the money, perhaps—I mean the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We lack his opinion upon this; his present opinion I mean, of course. But if we are not to have the advantage of this, I will venture to supply it—not by my own opinion of what he would say, the Committee may be re-assured as to that—but out of his own mouth, only two years since, when he sat among the stinging nettles upon the barren Opposition Bench; and there were other like instances. I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give his authority in support of this proposition, or whether he adheres to the opinion which he expressed in 1868? In that year, in a debate upon the state of Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman said—
But, then, at a moment when you are trying to reconcile the Irish people with the Government, you remove the landlord and place the British Government in his stead. Moreover, you take care that the new landlord shall be as odious as possible, because the State, which has become the landlord, is of necessity an absentee. The State is an abstract idea, and lives nowhere in particular—certainly not in Ireland……The State must, of necessity, be a hard, unyielding landlord, acting on fixed principles; for otherwise you open the door to every species of jobbery and corruption. Then, I suppose that sometimes the rent will not be paid. Indeed, it will very often not be paid. In bad seasons these 316,000 small holders will be pretty much on the hands of the State, and we shall have the hon. Member for Cork and other eloquent Irish Gentlemen entreating us to have mercy on a starving 749 people. That claim will not be made in vain, particularly if parties happen to be evenly balanced at the time. But, after all, if only for the look of the thing, you cannot always be giving up your rent. In that ease, where you have a property, and a tenant who will not pay the rent, you must evict. Is that one of the means to make the State popular in Ireland?. … Will you trust Government agents with the power of saying to tenants just before an election—'By the bye, I quite overlooked that pigstye; it is a most elegant edifice, and adds very much to the beauty of the landscape, as well as to the value of your three-acre holding: please accept £10 as compensation for this improvement, and if it should be convenient to you to vote for Mr. So-and-so, perhaps you will oblige me by doing so.' How can you leave to the Government a discretion like this? The State must act upon certain inflexible rules, and, even if merciful and generous, it will still be ten times as odious as an individual landlord; but it must be hard or corrupt, and very probably will be both. …. You ought to have some mercy upon us, and give us some better security than you propose to give us. We shall be heavy losers in point of money, and we shall, besides, become odious to the Irish people. We shall undertake an enormously difficult job; and there will be another risk of loss. …. You are going to settle the rents on every portion of the land of Ireland. Those rents are to he permanent, and, being chargeable on the whole holding, they cannot be apportioned in case of any subdivision of the land. Even the least sanguine of us must suppose that hereafter, in some portion of Ireland, there will be improvement. …. In concluding, I can only say that it is quite clear that the burning desire in the mind of these tenants of the Government would be to get rid of their landlord. Having first withdrawn all the Conservative influences in the country you would, in the next place, give the strongest possible impulse to the desire for separation, be cause the tenant would think that by getting rid of his landlord—that is, the Imperial Governnienl?—he would get rid of his rent at the same time and be thus enabled to live like a gentleman for the remainder of his life."—[3 Hansard, exc. 1494.]These were the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman in 1868. As it is probable that the right hon. Gentleman will be administering the taxation of the country for some years to come, it is the more important that the country should understand his precise opinion upon this delicate point. The right hon. Gentleman has, no doubt, renounced his former principles of political economy; but he certainly has not renounced, am cannot get rid of, his good, sterling broad, common sense. Now, I believe I am right if I hold the opinion that if the right hon. Gentleman spoke at all he would still speak thus. And now, in conclusion, let me say that the consideration I have offered seem to me sufficiently conclusive of the nature of 750 the clause we now discuss. To Irish landlords it may seem to offer a chance, perhaps the last chance they have, of getting a purchaser for a depreciated estate. To Irish tenants it may seem a fair opportunity for revenging themselves upon the Saxon by an attack upon his weakest point—a spoiling of the Egyptians before they go out. To the Irish patriot it may seem a slight return for the wrongs received by the credit and capital withdrawn from his country by England. But I have spoken as an Englishman in this case, and I believe not without due regard to the general interests at stake. As regards this scheme, I believe it to be vicious in principle, wrong in practice, and that it will be most mischievous in effect.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to point out the distinction between what they were about to do now, and what they had been doing. He entirely concurred with the hon. Member who had just sat down—there could be no doubt that this was peculiarly an English question. It was a compensation clause to the Irish landlords for that experiment carried out in regard to themselves and their relations with their tenants—the golden bridge built at the expense of the Imperial Exchequer, to enable them to escape from the position in which they were placed by the previous provisions of the Bill. Whilst the Chancellor of the Exchequer was considering his answer to the inquiry of the hon. Member for, East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) he (Mr. Whalley) would put this plain question to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. The Imperial Exchequer was called upon to be responsible for the purchase of any quantity of land in Ireland. He knew certain landowners who were prepared to avail themselves of this fund to the extent of £2,000,000. There was nothing that could justify such a course but the object held out to them by the First Minister of the Crown—namely, the pacification of Ireland. He asked whether, it would not be better at once, having regard to the principles of economy, to give this money absolutely; for it was ridiculous even to dream of getting it back, except at the cost of future contention or civil war. As one of the most humble, unconsidered Members of the House, desirous of protecting the English taxpayers, he put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether, 751 after this sacrifice was made, either as a loan or gift, he could give them an adequate assurance that the pacification and contentment of Ireland would be attained? It was plain to the taxpayers of this country that they had no protection in this matter from anything like what was called an Opposition. The Opposition were, in this instance, at one with the Government. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, he hoped not. But it appeared to him, whether that were so or not, that it was impossible they could hope to conciliate the discontented spirits in Ireland; because they were irretrievably and incurably the foes of England. So long as England maintained the principles of civil and religious liberty, there were forces at work to keep Ireland in direct, inveterate, and irreconcilable antagonism to Imperial interests. There was but one plan that ever succeeded, or that ever could succeed in regard to promoting the welfare and peace of Ireland. That was, what they saw in operation in Ulster—a state of things that commenced in the time of James I.—namely, the placing of large bulwarks in the shape of landowners against the encroachments of the broad mass of the people. He asked the first Minister of the Crown to state, in terms which would make him responsible for the opinion, on what ground he justified the proposal before the Committee.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was most willing to attempt, though he was not sanguine of the result, to satisfy the hon. Gentleman as to the policy and purpose of the clause when the proper time arrived for such explanation—namely, when the question arose that the clause should stand part of the Bill. That time, however, had not as yet arrived. They were now engaged in considering an Amendment moved by his right hon. Friend near him (the Chief Secretary for Ireland) which was simply a limitation of the clause. He would suggest that they had better dispose of the minor questions first, and then the proposition of the hon. Member would be a very fair subject for discussion.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought it desirable that the words should stand part of the clause; but that the Board should be required to have the written opinion of a surveyor or engineer as to the value of an estate.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the Board of Works was both competent to inquire and difficult to satisfy; and to prescribe a particular mode in which it should perform its duties would only weaken the responsibility that was thrown upon it by the Bill.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that by the existing law, 9 & 10 Vict., s. 28, the Board was obliged to have a report.
§ COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he could assert that all the loans which were made to counties in Ireland had been fully repaid with interest; and he would ask whether the Government, in bringing forward such a measure as the Land Bill, ought not to be prepared to take some of the burdens it entailed?
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 20, after "Act" to insert the words "whenever the price of such holding shall not be less than four hundred pounds."—(Mr. R. Torrens.)
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the Amendment was very far from meeting the only possible risk attendant on carrying out the plan before the Committee, and the Government thought it unadvisable to accept it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CANDLISHsaid, he wished to suggest an Amendment to the words "three-fourths" in the clause. There was no doubt that this part of the Bill was highly exceptional in its principle; but that was the character of the whole Bill, and he believed that the mind of England was settled in the conviction that, without this part of the Bill, the previous part of the measure would be utterly useless. But would it not be in the interest, even of the tenantry of Ireland that the limit should be somewhat less than three-fourths of the purchase money? If the tenants of Ireland could be induced to increase their own investments, that increased interest in the soil would have a great effect in stimulating personal efforts. He feared that if the sum to be borrowed was as large as proposed, this weight of debt thus created might induce despondency and despair. Mischief to the tenantry and loss to the British taxpayer would be the result. He would ask the Government to consider between then and the bringing up of the Report, whether it would 753 not be desirable to reduce this figure to two-thirds, or three-fifths, or even to one-half? If, under the pressure of a heavy load of debt, a feeling of despair became general amongst the tenantry, how, he asked, would the Government be able to realize their securities? It was clear to reason and common sense that the difficulties which besot the Government and made this legislation necessary would be greatly aggravated if they were obliged to resort to a general enforcement of the securities upon which those loans were advanced.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he should propose to limit the advance to be made by the Irish Board of Works to one moiety of the price of the holding instead of three-fourths, as in the Bill. The Amendment would make the clause uniform with the previous clause. Besides, the term of 22 years, for which the annuity payable to the Government was to run, was a long one; and in case of a general fall of rents during the period, the security to the State for the repayment of the money would be small, as the tenants might then press for a reduction. Assuming an estate to be worth £1,000, and the rental at £50, the effect of the clause would be that the purchaser would have to pay the Government a sum of £48 15s. per annum for 22 years. And supposing, during the period, any calamity should befal Ireland, whereby the value of the produce of the land was reduced 5 or 10 or 15 per cent, there would, in fact, be no security for the repayment of the money borrowed. It would, in fact, absolutely abolish the security. He moved in page 21, line 20, after "exceeding" to leave out "three-fourths," and insert "one moiety."
§ MR. PEASEsaid, he was inclined, on a first consideration, to oppose the clause, but on reflection he felt it was perfectly safe as it stood, if the valuation was made under the Landed Estates Court. The security was one which would be constantly increasing. He believed, however, that very few tenants would be ready to purchase.
§ MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, he hoped the Government would maintain the scale as it stood in the Bill, because to render the clause operative it must be made as easy as possible for the tenants, who were not overburdened with ready money. If the Amendment were adopted the tenants would be driven to borrow 754 money at a high rate of interest with which to supplement the Government loan. The result of an experiment he had tried on a small portion of his own property was, that the tenants, after paying 25 per cent down, and agreeing to pay the remainder in five or six years, repaid the whole amount in three, if not two years afterwards. Such would be the case with a great number of tenants under the operation of the present clause. He ventured to say that the apprehensions expressed by the hon. Member (Mr. Sclater-Booth.) that the Irish tenants would after a time ask for a reduction of the annuity clue to the Government, or refuse to pay it, would be falsified by the result. If an evil time arose, as shadowed forth by the hon. Member, the tenants would be able to obtain assistance from their friends when it was known that they had purchased their farms. He did not think the provisions of the Bill would be so largely taken advantage of as the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) supposed.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he trusted that the Committee would not agree to the Amendment. In reference to this Bill, the Irish landlords had made but small complaint, wishing to see a measure passed to quiet the excited feelings of the Irish nation; and he regretted, on a clause proposed with a view of benefiting the Irish tenants by an advance of money from the Imperial Exchequer, that an Amendment was proposed by the hon. Member sitting Below him (Mr. Sclater-Booth), limiting that benefit. The Irish tenants had a strong desire to purchase the land they held; but, if the Amendment were adopted, they would practically gain nothing, and would feel that the English people, after talking much and depriving the landlords of Ireland of much they enjoyed, were very niggard of their money, though there was a very small chance of their losing any of it. Public money advanced to the landlords of Ireland had been faithfully paid. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) when he spoke of a golden bridge being prepared for Irish landlords, showed that he knew little about Ireland or the landlords of Ireland.
§ MR. J. HOWARDsaid, he did not agree with previous speakers in thinking that the provisions of the clause under discussion were necessary to the paci- 755 fication of Ireland; the passion for the ownership of land in every country he was acquainted with arose out of insecurity of tenure; the previous portion of the Bill gave absolute security to the tenantry, and he therefore thought that the desire which now possessed the people of Ireland to become their own landlords would die out. He had hitherto invariably voted with the Government upon the Bill now before the Committee; he had done so because he believed that thus far the clauses were based upon sound principles; and it was because he thought that the present clause was based upon an unsound principle he had risen to object to it. The House had been repeatedly told by the party opposite that the Bill was a revolutionary one; from Members on his own side he had also, in the Lobbies and elsewhere, heard whisperings and murmurings about its revolutionary tendencies. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite cried "Hear, hear!" but he could assure them he did not share or concur in these views. He maintained that the Bill was no invasion of the just rights of property, and there was no reason to fall back, as his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) had just done, upon the doctrine that an exceptional state of things justified the adoption of exceptional principles in legislation; the Bill thus far could be defended both upon the laws of political economy and the principles of wise legislation. In Ireland there were two classes—the one weak, the other strong—the latter, the landlord class, was strong out of all proportion to the other. A fundamental principle in the making of laws was the protection of the weak against the undue exercise of power on the part of the strong; therefore, if he understood the principles of the Bill, thus far it was founded upon that broad and well recognized principle of legislation. He would not, however, pursue this line further, inasmuch as, so far as that House was concerned, the principle was settled that the tenants were to be secured against any undue exercise of power upon the part of the landlords. The clause under discussion, however, was based upon an entirely different principle from the preceding part of the Bill. It introduced the principle that the State is justified in stepping in and interfering with the natural laws of the distribution of wealth.
756 [Cheers.] Hon. Members cheered, but he must tell them that he objected to the clause for totally different reasons to the hon. Members opposite; he attacked the clause upon the same ground he would the law of primogeniture or the Code Napoléon. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not appear to see the connection between the two subjects, but he maintained that both the one and the other infringed the natural law of the distribution of property; and he held it was no part of the province of Government to pass or maintain laws which had for their object either the consolidation of estates or their disintegration, and he warned the Committee that unless Parliament revoked the law of primogeniture a day of reckoning would come, and perhaps come sooner than hon. Members expected.
§ MR. MAGUIREsaid, his hon. Friend who had last spoken (Mr. Howard) had made an important statement—important if true—but which, in his opinion, had been made on erroneous information—that on the passing of this Bill, one of its consequences would be that the passion for the acquisition of the possession of land would die out in Ireland. Now, he (Mr. Maguire) supported this Bill because he believed that it would inspire the Irish tenant with a sense of security, and enable him to prosecute his industry without fear or apprehension; but whatever the sense of security it inspired it would not counteract the passionate desire amongst the tenantry to obtain, if they possibly could, the ownership of the farms they tilled. The passion for the possession of land was one of the strongest that animated the human heart; and if there were any people in whom that passion was stronger than it was in another, the Irish were that people. No matter how good or how protective this or any other measure might be, it could not give that which purchase could alone give—the absolute ownership, independent of all control or responsibility. Now one of the great evils with which they had had to deal had been this—that vast masses of property had been sold in the Courts, and that the tenants on them—those not protected by lease—had been handed over from one class of proprietors to another, and thus placed in a condition of abject dependence. The evil had been that the hammer of the Judge had not fallen with sufficient 757 weight and force, and had not smashed great masses of property into small fragments, so as to distribute the possession or ownership of land more largely and widely over the community. The present proposal in the Bill afforded one of the best remedies against a recurrence of this evil—the transfer of property in bulk to new men, who had no interest in the tenantry, who had no due sense of their responsibility, and who regarded the estate they had become possessed of was merely as a means of obtaining so much percent on their outlay. But take a case in point—one known to the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce). A certain estate in Ulster was about to be sold, and the tenants were willing to purchase it—they were willing to avail themselves of the assistance of this Bill, and of those clauses in order to purchase it on fair terms. Would it not, he asked, be a sad thing if these tenants should be handed over to new proprietors, who would have no knowledge of and no interest in them? He was present when these tenants were represented at an interview with the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in reference to this matter—and, if he mistook not, the same deputation waited on the Prime Minister, with respect to their position and their desire to become proprietors by purchase. The larger tenants were quite willing to assist the smaller tenants to pay the necessary amount as a condition to Government assistance. Now as to the effect on the tenant of the hope of being one day the owner of his own land, his belief was, that the necessity for the payment of the annual instalment would not act on him with a depressing or desponding effect—quite the contrary. He believed that it would act as a stimulus to exertion, as an incentive to industry; for the payment of every year would bring him nearer to his grand object—that of becoming a proprietor in his native land. Every payment would increase his own security of the soil, and render the remainder the more easy. Besides, let it not be supposed that there were not many tenants who would not limit themselves to the annual instalments, but who, in many instances, would anticipate their payments, and so secure possession in the shortest possible time. Surely no opposition ought to come from the front Bench opposite to this proposal; for the Earl of Mayo, in his Bill, proposed to 758 advance money to the tenant on very much less security than was required in these clauses; and the Government were only applying the same principle to another purpose, and walking in the footsteps of the late Government, but with a firmer and surer tread. Then, as to the British taxpayer, who was referred to with such solemnity in support of an idle apprehension, one would suppose that Government were asking the country to advance £200,000,000—about half the value of the property of Ireland; whereas the amount required at present is £1,000,000; and with this £1,000,000, which was to be constantly revolving—now going out, and now coming in—much good would be done, and no real risk run. But surely the Parliament of the United Kingdom, who had lately called on the British taxpayer to pay £10,000,000 for the slaughter of a wretched nigger in Abyssinia, might call on the same British taxpayer to sanction the advance of £1,000,000 to Her Majesty's Irish subjects, on the best possible security.
§ MR. O'REILLYsaid, he believed that an advance of three-fourths of the price of a holding would leave an abundant margin for security. There was an estate in the county with which he was connected about to be put up for sale; but the tenants were anxious it should not be done until after this Bill was passed, and, from inquiries he had made, he had every reason to believe that the tenants would be able to put down in their own money one-fourth of the value.
§ SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEsaid, he must deprecate, as inconvenient and annoying, constant references to particular individuals, and to the Marquess of Waterford and his tenants, in particular—which case was first mentioned in the House by the Prime Minister. Whatever might be thought of the principle upon which that estate was managed, there was no mistake as to the estimation the noble Marquess and his agent were held in, and a more straightforward and honourable tenantry did not exist. It by no means followed that because the title of an estate was in the Landed Estates Court the estate must be sold. He should object to introducing a clause into the Bill to meet the case of any particular estate. As to the tenantry in the North of Ireland, they were industrious and frugal, and if they undertook to repay an advance made by the Go- 759 vernment he believed they would do so, and the country would lose nothing. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to make the plunge, and adopt this new principle—So different to the views he had expressed a few years ago—he (Sir Frederick Heygate) was compelled to follow him, in the hope that it would be for the best.
§ MR. MAGUIRE, in explanation, said, he had not mentioned the name of the proprietor in question; but, as it had now been mentioned, he might say that he had heard the tenants describe Lord Waterford as one of the best of landlords.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he thought that any man who wanted to purchase ought to have in his pocket at least one-third of the purchase money, and he suggested that the limit of the advance by the State should be two-thirds, instead of three-fourths of the purchase money.
§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, he concurred in this suggestion.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that in mentioning the case of the Marquess of Waterford he had believed that the transaction was entirely public. A large deputation to Downing Street, including some tenants on the estate, had made no secret of the matter, and if he had erred in alluding to it it was in entire ignorance. As to the advances contemplated by the clause, he agreed that they ought not to go beyond the margin to which persons lending money on mortgage would ordinarily go, and, therefore, while resisting the reduction to one-half, he should be prepared to adopt the limit of two-thirds. With this change, however, he should think it right to combine one proposed by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), and make the term fixed for repayment 35 years, at the rate of £5 per cent per annum, instead of 22 years at £6 10s. That would make the position of the State a very secure one.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he thought it should be optional on the part of the tenant to repay the advance within a shorter period than the extreme limit fixed in the Act.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§ Clause amended by making the limit of the advance two-thirds of the purchase money, and the annuity extend 760 to 35 years at £5 per cent, instead of 22 years at £6 10s.
§ MR. R. TORRENSsaid, he would remind the Committee of Lord Brougham's saying—that the possession of land in small parcels was a luxury that might be indulged in by a rich man, but was a ruinous extravagance to a man of small moans. This was owing to our intricate, costly, and insecure method of conveyancing. From his own experience, derived from other countries, he ventured to say that, so far from conferring a boon on the tenant-farmers by making them owners in fee simple of their holdings, the properties thus acquired would very-soon pass into the hands of the solicitors of Ireland. He begged, therefore, to move in line 32, after "holding," to insert "or withdraw the same from under the operation of the Record of Titles Act, Ireland."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he must point out that the Record of Titles Act was merely permissive, and there was no sense in providing that an estate should not be withdrawn from under the operation of an Act under which it need not be put.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he rose to move the rejection of the clause, as amended. He did so in the interest of the English and Scotch taxpayers. He believed the principle was bad, and if adopted it could not be limited to one part of Her Majesty's dominions, or one class of her subjects. The right hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon (Colonel French) had stated that the Irish people always paid the loans which were advanced to them, illustrating that argument by a reference to the loans which had been made to counties. The advancing money to counties was, however, a very different matter from lending it to Irish tenants—already struggling hard to paytheir rent—for the purchase of small, miserable holdings. It was said by some persons that only £1,000,000 would be required under the clause; but it was impossible to know how much would be asked for in reality, and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had stated that, once the principle itself was sanctioned, there would be practically no limit to the amount of those loans. The fact was that the clause was a sop to 761 the Irish landlords who wished to sell their estates, and if the system which it was intended to carry out were once established in the case of the Irish tenant, how could it with justice be refused to be extended to the English or Scotch tenant or the Rochdale operative who might wish to become a mill-owner? He, for one, was altogether opposed to advancing so large a proportion as 75 per cent to small holders, who might, having worked out their land and made it valueless, go off to America, leaving the Government to trust to the chapter of accidents for re-payment. He should, in support of the position which he had taken up, adduce the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who, in 1847, when in the plenitude of his glorious and brilliant powers, said he did not believe the Bill for regulating the relations of landlord and tenant, as recommended by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), would restore prosperity to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman added that, in his opinion, a proposal to vest the ownership of the land in the present small occupiers would never be accepted by Parliament, but if it were it would be fatal to the best interests of the country. Those words were strictly applicable to the present clause. An advance of two-thirds would so cripple tenants that it would be impossible for them to cultivate the soil properly. There was another argument which deserved consideration. In The Times of Friday last there was an account of another outrage in Ireland. It appeared that in 1863 the tenant of a farm of 70 acres became embarrassed and voluntarily surrendered the land to the owner, who forgave him all the arrears of rent, and in addition presented him with a sum of money to enable him to emigrate. All this kindness, however, was thrown away, for everybody who took the land was soon compelled to relinquish possession of it, and the agent, Mr. George Hornidge, was threatened with death if he did not let it to a particular man. Was it not to be feared, then, that if this clause passed tenants might combine to purchase land and compel the owners by terror to accept the terms they offered? For these reasons he hoped the Committee would reject the clause.
§ COLONEL CORBETTsaid, the principle of this clause was as much a question 762 for Englishmen as for Irishmen, if not more so. No doubt the Irish Members were desirous to attract as much money as possible into their country; but this fact would not recommend the clause to the representatives of English and Scotch constituencies. He denied that the principle of granting loans to landlords was analogous to the present proposal; because, in the former case, the money was lent on undoubted security and devoted to the improvement of the land, a result which benefited the whole community, whereas the effect of this clause would be to increase the number of small holdings. Now, small holdings meant small produce, which was an injury to any country. He maintained that the proposal would be equally disastrous to the Government, the Irish, landlords, the Irish tenants, and the taxpayers. As to the Government it would assume a most unsatisfactory position if it became a large landowner in Ireland; because the agency necessary for the due supervision of the lands would be very expensive, while in the event of another potato famine or visitation of cattle disease, the tenants would be unable to pay their annuities. The Government must then either take possession of the land or remit the money which was due, and hardly anyone could doubt that they would adopt the latter course and thus inflict a hardship on the taxpayers. If this is the case with the Government, how would it be with the landlords? He could hardly imagine a less enviable position than that of a landlord unwilling to soil, and whose tenants desired to purchase. There would be a Naboth's vineyard in every parish in the country. The idea of a peasant proprietary was a pleasant one. It led one to think of a neat snug cottage and a well-cultivated garden, sweet with roses and honeysuckles; but hon. Gentlemen ought to reflect that the reality might be a pauper landlord inhabiting a mud hovel without a window, and everything redolent of the pig. It was said that the annuity payable to the Government would prevent the splitting up of the lettings. But the annuity being paid, and the farm become his own, he would desire to sublet, and he would sublet and subdivide, and the evils to which Ireland had been subjected years ago would be repeated. He considered that the proposal was one to lend money 763 on a bad security, and for a worse purpose, and earnestly trusted the Committee would reject the clause.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the indica-cations made during the last two hours had satisfied the Government that the general feeling of the Committee was in favour of the clause, not upon grounds of abstract preference, nor because they shut their eyes to the fact that the proposal was novel and peculiar, but because it was justifiable with reference to the objects contemplated by the present measure. The hon. Baronet who proposed to put a negative on the clause (Sir George Jenkinson) said he spoke in the interest of the British taxpayers. Now, he believed there was no Member of the House who had had the misfortune to place himself more in conflict with the representatives from Ireland respecting questions affecting the British taxpayer than he had himself, for on many occasions it had been his painful duty to refuse grants of public money to Ireland. But the measure now under consideration, if it were good for anything at all, was good for the interest of the British taxpayers, because it was designed to create security and confidence in Ireland in lieu of insecurity and want of confidence. If it attained that end it would not be necessary eight or ten years hence to expend £1,000,000 a year in Ireland for police and military. The hon. Baronet had a little confused them upon the subject of the security, because he had mixed up the two-thirds the Government proposed with the three-fourths they had abandoned, and made it impossible for the Committee to reconcile his figures. The hon. Baronet's doctrine was, that when the tenant had paid down one-third of the price of his land he would become perfectly indifferent about paying the rest and becoming absolute proprietor of his farm—that he would think of nothing but exhausting the land by bad farming, and then making his escape to America. He, on the contrary, had great confidence in the feeling of honour among Irishmen, and believed the Irish tenant would appreciate the sacredness and discharge the obligation of the contract he had entered into; for, however he might have been injured by bad laws and unfortunate circumstances, he had never lost the quality of gratitude. He (Mr. Gladstone) believed this clause would 764 call the best sentiments into exercise. The hon. Baronet asked why the Government did not propose to extend the measure to England. The answer was—because the ambition to become a proprietor of the soil did not spring up in a country where the tenant felt himself perfectly secure—where the product of his industry was protected by well-understood contracts and entire confidence in the landlord. The tenant in England knew perfectly well that he had a much more lucrative return for his capital by using it as a tenant-farmer than a proprietor; and in England, instead of tenants becoming landlords, small proprietors sold their land and farmed on a larger scale as tenants. In Ireland, where that sense of security and general confidence did not exist, no such thing occurred; but the Government hoped that this Bill would prove to be a valuable instrument towards creating that confidence and security. With regard to the remedies in case of non-payment the Government had not only the remedy of eviction, but the power to attach the whole produce of the farm, and he did not suppose the Irish farmer would be desirous of remaining in holdings the whole produce of which would be taken in satisfaction of his obligation. His desire would be to discharge his obligation. The hon. Baronet had also prophesied an unbounded demand for advances. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not think there was likely to be such a demand. But if there were there was no reason why the supply should also be unbounded. The House would hold in in its hands the power of saying how far the experiment should be carried out, and the only thing now asked of Parliament was that the thing should be tried.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he concurred in the objection which the hon. Baronet (Sir George Jenkinson) had taken to this clause, but seeing the state of the House, he agreed with the First Lord of the Treasury that it was of little use to divide; for, although the sense of the Committee might not be with the Government, the votes would. He regretted the Government had not formed this clause and those connected with it into a separate Bill. But he took exception to this clause mainly on the ground that it was the first instance in the history of the country—and he hoped 765 it would be the last—that the Government had taken upon itself to ask for money to assist tenants to become proprietors of land. He knew of no right by which which any person could ask the Government to change his position at the expense of the country. No person had a right to say—"My position is not convenient to me; I am pressed and in difficulties, and I want you to put me in a position of independence." Nor did he know upon what principle the State could do this. The duty of the State was to give to every man free scope for changing and advancing his position; but not itself to alter that position, or to consider whether any person was tenant or landlord, rich or poor. The first-part of the Bill was designed to ensure for the tenant the security he wished for, but it was a different thing to turn tenants into landlords at the expense of the State. That was a proceeding entirely objectionable. Besides, were they so sure that, in taking upon themselves to decide what the future of a man should be as regards his social position, that they were consulting his happiness and really benefiting him? His reading led him to an entirely different conclusion. The passion for proprietorship of the soil extended itself from father to son, and would, under this system, extend still further; it would not be allayed by gratifying the present head of the family. The sons would ask to participate in the possessions of the father; the land would be divided among them; and so the passion would be fostered, simply by paying deference to feeling, instead of listening only to the dictates of reason. It was not wise to endorse by the sanction of Parliament the principle that the ownership of land was a better thing than the occupation. He protested against the clause as Socialistic and Communistic, and the commencement of legislation which would create an evil at present without existence, and which posterity would regret when it found Ireland still unpacified, and the distress and agitation among her people increased.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the very strong opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) was not shared in by the vast body of those in Ireland, on both sides of politics, who were best acquainted with the country. The right 766 hon. Gentleman exaggerated the importance of this portion of the Bill by comparing it with what had gone before, and by assuming that the facilities it offered would be largely taken advantage of. Most of those best acquainted with Ireland, including many holding Conservative views, did not think those facilities would be very largely used; but they were of opinion that in a country like Ireland, divided so painfully and dangerously between the poor and the rich, and so devoid of the middle classes created in England and Scotland by commerce and manufactures, it was expedient and wise, in the interest of peace and order, to give special facilities to the tenants to convert themselves into owners of the land which they at present cultivated. The Government had never asserted the right of anyone to demand to be improved in position at the expense of the public. The fact was that Parliament, in the exercise of its discretion, had come to the conclusion that it would be for the interest of the country that opportunities should be afforded to tenants to become possessors of holdings. These facilities, however, would not be afforded at the expense of the taxpayer, because the most ample security was taken by the Government. In the first place, the Bill ensured that the experiment should be only an experiment, and that Parliament should have full opportunity of judging of the working of the scheme before granting permission to extend it. The operation of the clause, as it now stood, upon the Irish occupier would, in the first place, be to require him to pay down a third of the whole purchase money; and he could not therefore be, as the hon. Baronet (Sir George Jenkinson) feared he would be, a poor, struggling, needy man. On the contrary, he must be an industrious and enterprizing man; one in whom the Board of Works could place confidence. Then, again, as to repayment of the advances, he would have to pay annually 5 per cent upon the reduced purchase-money. That annual instalment would in many cases, he believed, be less than the money now paid in the form of rent; and if by any chance the purchaser should find that he had fallen into bad circumstances, and was unable to meet his engagements, there would, over and above the remedies provided in 767 this Bill, be no difficulty in finding a solvent man who would be happy to stand in his shoes, and whom the Board of Works could approve as his successor. He believed, therefore, that the scheme would not result in any injury either to the Treasury or to the taxpayer. As to the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) that by the course taken they had acted unfairly towards Parliament, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that if the House of Lords thought these provisions ought to have been embodied in a separate Bill, they could, though he hoped they would not, pursue that course, and strike out these clauses from the Bill.
§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, he objected strongly to this clause, for the reasons expressed by his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Gathorne Hardy). If he felt sure that this was but an experiment he would support the Government, as he was willing to do much in the way of concession for the purpose of pacifying Ireland; but, as he believed the result of the present proposal would be to increase and not to allay discontent in that country, he should vote with the hon. Baronet if a Division were taken, although it would be better not to press the Amendment.
§ MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he would remind the Committee that what was now entitled an experiment had, through the instrumentality of the Credit Foncier, and similar companies, been tried in France and Prussia, and with the happiest results. He did not think there was any ground for apprehending that the subdivision of land in Ireland would ever be carried to anything like the extent to which it was carried previous to the potato failure.
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, he would recommend his hon. Friend who had proposed this Amendment not to divide, because it would, he thought, be a useless ceremony as far as practical result went. Individually, moreover, he could not support him, because on the second reading of this Bill he had certainly, with reference to this part of the Bill, stated that he did not think it so objectionable, because in other cases the State had been in the habit of lending money to landlords to drain their estates. There was, however, so much force in the ob- 768 jections urged by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), that he was anxious to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in 1868 had denounced the folly and impolicy of the State placing itself in the position of an Irish landlord, had to say in support of the clause. If the Government found a tenant did not pay and ejected him, what would be the result? No one would dare to take the land, and it would be left tenantless upon the hands of the Government. Having granted this privilege, moreover, to Ireland, he could not see how a similar demand in the case of England and Scotland could be refused.
§ MR. WREN-HOSKYNSsaid, that if hon. Gentlemen would study the two Blue Books which had been issued about the conditions on which land was held in different parts of Europe, they would find that the ownership of land in small quantities was one of the most conservative, valuable, and pacifying elements, which it was possible to introduce into a State. He was disposed to think that when all the rest of the Bill was forgotten in Ireland this part of it would be remembered with a feeling of gratitude to those who had proposed it. He looked with apprehension at the enormous aggregation of land in this country, and the prejudice which existed against small proprietors, and he should, therefore, heartily support the Government in a Division.
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he would ask the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Wren-Hoskyns) whether the system of small proprietors which he lauded so highly had proved successful in France? On the contrary, it was well known that the properties in that country were mortgaged to the chimney-tops. He believed that the same result would be produced in Ireland under the operation of this clause. Tenants, anxious to get hold of their land, would borrow from their neighbours or friends the money with which to pay the first instalment, and they would thus set out in their career clogged by a debt that they would never be able to pay off. This provision would not prove a blessing, but a curse to Ireland, and he should, therefore, support the Amendment. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had endeavoured to show that the money to be paid in in- 769 terest would not be equal to the rent which, was now paid. That might or might not be the case, though his own impression was different from that of the right hon. Gentleman. But who was going to pay the county cess, the tithes of the newly-purchased estate, the poor rates, and other charges? Who would pay for looking into the title of the landlord? He entirely agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Elcho), who had said if this was to be done for Ireland, it could not, and ought not to be refused to England and Scotland; indeed, all the arguments in the case of the former country might be used with much greater force in regard to the latter. For his own part, when order and security prevailed once more in Ireland, when the Government found it possible to withdraw their troops and to diminish the police, he should be more disposed than he was now to give his assent to this experiment being tried.
§ MR. TIPPINGsaid, he would ask whether the effect of the proposed advances for the acquisition of land in Ireland would not be to multiply the number of families upon the soil in that country? The diminutions that took place in the families of peasant proprietors was a point well worthy of consideration when it was proposed to pass a clause of this nature. In France it had been found that within the last 20 years the average number of children constituting the family of the peasant proprietor had decreased by one-half. The prosperity of the country under this system was essentially attributable to that fact, and the same result was observable, more or less, in Belgium and Germany. It was true that in the more favoured regions of France—of garden soil and in the wine districts—subdivision worked successfully. In the region near Blois he had found that as much as £130,000 or £140,000 had been placed in the bank by the small proprietors. But it was a failure in districts where the soil and climate more nearly resembled our own; the condition of the peasant proprietors in those regions being decidedly inferior to that of our agricultural population, while the births of children had dwindled so much that it was seriously recommended that premiums should be offered to those who could show the largest families.
§ MR. J. HOWARDsaid, his objection 770 to the clause was grounded on the plain and intelligible principle that it was not the duty of the State to interfere in the consolidation of large estates or in their disintegration. The result of his observation—which was not founded upon Blue Books—of the subdivision of land in foreign countries led him to a very different conclusion to that of his hon. Friend (Mr. Wren-Hoskyns).
§ MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, he thought the practical effect of the clause would be to make a free gift of a very large sum of money to the landlords of Ireland; for he considered it certain that the tenants would, in the great majority of cases, never be able to complete the payment for their land.
§ MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNsaid, he should vote with the hon. Baronet (Sir George Jenkinson) if he pressed his Amendment to a Division. A sense of duty to his constituents would compel him to oppose this waste of the public money. The First Minister of the Crown had argued that what made the people of Ireland desire to purchase laud was the want of a sufficient security of tenure. But what was the use of this Bill, or of the 3rd clause of it, if not to give security of tenure? If the Bill became law, tenants in Ireland would have a much greater security than the same class in England or Scotland.
§ MR. CORRANCEsaid, there were a hundred good reasons why they should not go to a Division, and one good reason why they should; and that was that they had not yet had a speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though in the early part of the evening he (Mr. Corrance) had quoted the opinions expressed some time since by the right hon. Gentleman. They had been told by the First Minister of the Crown that this was avowedly an experiment, and that he relied upon its success for the pacification of Ireland. He (Mr. Corrance) had already given his reasons for doubting that it would be successful. They had been told that the House of Commons would possess the power of limiting the expenditure of the public money in the way proposed by the clause. But that power now existed, and how were they about to exercise it? The proper time to exercise the power was now that the power was before them. If the Government wanted £1,000,000 this year, what was there to prevent them from 771 demanding £2,000,000 next year? By this experiment they were about to violate all the great principles by which, a State should be governed.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he considered this clause held out a direct premium to conspiracy, murder, and outrage in Ireland. ["Order! order!"] The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had not satisfactorily explained the grounds on which he based his expectation that this part of the Bill would produce contentment, happiness, and peace in Ireland. For his own part, he feared that the Irish mind would draw from this particular concession, as it had drawn from many previous ones, a fresh incentive to turbulence and crime.
§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he could not accede to the request that he would not divide, because the question before them was an important one of principle. He must divide the Committee, because he was answerable to his constituents, and because other English and Scotch Members would also have to answer to their constituents if they sanctioned the proposed appropriation of Imperial funds.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 114; Noes 27: Majority 87.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clauses 42 to 65, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 66 (Special Definititions).
§ MR. WREN-HOSKYNSsaid, he would propose, in line 38, after "tillages," to insert—
That is to say, acts of husbandry other than manuring done in the last year of the tenancy for the benefit of the succeeding occupier;After "manures," to insert—That is to say, any farm manure or compost unused and left on the farm, or any lime, or bones, or marl used on the farm in the last four years of the occupancy, which shall be considered to be exhausted in equal proportion in each of such four years.
§ MR. M'MAHONsaid, he hoped the Government would not adopt the Amendment.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he thought it very undesirable to limit the discretion of the Court in the interpretation of the words.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
772§ MR. CORRANCEmoved an Amendment defining manure to mean bones, lime, marl, and hay and straw left on the farm.
§ MR. STAPLETONsaid, that the present system of agriculture might become exploded, and then the hon. Member's definition would have to be amended by another Act of Parliament.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that if a perfect definition could be devised it would be acceptable; but he thought perfection had not been attained in the hon. Member's Amendment.
§ MR. M'LAGANsaid, he noticed the omission of guano in the Amendment, and asked how it could be regarded as a perfect definition without.
§ MR. CORRANCEsaid, he had purposely omitted guano.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 67 agreed to.
§ Clause 68 (Application of Act).
§ SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he had put on the Paper an Amendment to the effect that the Act should apply to every tenant, of any class, to which its provisions are applicable, who was in occupation of a holding on the first day of the present Session. He did not intend to press that Amendment, but offered it as a suggestion to the Government.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he thought that, unless a very strong case could be made out for the Amendment, the Committee should not entertain it, as it would cause ill feeling.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, that, in anticipation of this Act, notices were served last November, to expire on the 1st of May inst., and unless there was some provision in the Bill such tenants would be deprived of the benefit of the Act. To his own knowledge there were 200 such cases.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that if there were any considerable number of such cases it would be necessary for the Government to consider the subject; but at present no facts of sufficient gravity had been made known to the Government to warrant them in dealing with it. The giving of a notice last November, in anticipation of the Bill, seemed to him to be a very wild and speculative action; but even if a tenant had quitted this month, the land- 773 lord did not intend to take the holding into his own possession; it must, therefore, pass to another tenant, who would come under the operation of the Bill. He therefore did not understand what benefit the landlord would derive, nor what could be his inducement to give the notice.
§ DR. BALLsaid, the Bill would operate on all subsisting tenancies, and he, therefore, thought that the Government were not called upon to take any particular action, or to make any such alteration as that which had been suggested. A notice could not have been given last November in anticipation of this Bill, because neither a landlord nor any other person in Ireland ever dreamt that the Government would introduce such a Bill as that now before the Committee. With respect, however, to the clause relating to the Judges who were to administer this Bill, he wished to suggest to the Government the propriety of considering, before the Report, whether, instead of leaving the additional amount of salary to be settled afterwards by the Lord Lieutenant, or the Treasury, or any other arbitrary tribunal, it could not be settled by the Bill. The Judges would thereby be placed in an independent position, and additional confidence would be felt by the public.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government had considered this question, in which there were two points involved; the first was as to the sort of addition that should be made to the salaries of the Judges; and the second was, from what source, and through what channel, should that increase be given—whether it should be from the Consolidated Fund, or be dependent on the annual Votes of the House. With regard to the Consolidated Fund, it was rather a question of dignity than of substance, because the charge in one case was not less secure than in the other; but there would be no objection on the part of the Government to the addition being drawn from that source. As to the amount, it was not possible for the Government to determine that at the present time, because it was not known whether the Judges would have much or little more business under the Bill. Some persons supposed that after the Bill passed Ireland would be a hive of litigation, while others were sanguine enough to believe 774 that the knowledge of persons being well secured in their rights would go far to dispense with litigation altogether, while there were different circumstances which applied to various parts of the country, and cases arising under the Bill might be very rare or very serious in different provinces.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEproposed to insert the following clause after Clause 1:—
(Legality of tenant custom other than Ulster custom.)If, in the case of any holding not situate within the Province of Ulster, it shall appear that an usage prevails which in all essential particulars corresponds with the Ulster tenant-right custom, it shall, in like manner, and subject to the like conditions, be deemed legal, and shall be enforced in manner provided by this Act.Where the landlord has purchased or shall hereafter purchase from the tenant the benefit of such usage as aforesaid to which his holding is subject, such holding shall thenceforth cease to be subject to such usage.A tenant of any holding subject to such usage as aforesaid, and who claims the benefit of the same, shall not be entitled to claim compensation under any other section of this Act; but a tenant; of a holding not claiming the benefit of such usage shall not he barred from making a claim for compensation, with the consent of the Court, under any of the other sections of this Act, and where such last-mentioned claim has been made and allowed, such holding shall not be again subject to such usage as aforesaid.
§ Clause brought up and read a first and second time.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, he would beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed clause, after "with," to insert "the usages, or any of them, existing in the Province of Ulster, and commonly known as." His object was to make the clause conformable with the 1st clause, and to narrow the issue to be brought before the Court.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he must object to the Amendment as unnecessary.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he would beg to propose, after Clause 3 to insert the following clause:—
(Satisfaction from incoming tenants.)Where the tenant of any holding is disturbed by the act of the landlord he shall not be entitled to any compensation under section three of this Act when it appears to the Court that such tenant has been given permission by the landlord to obtain from an incoming tenant satisfaction in lieu of 775 such compensation, on such terms as the Court may think just, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.Notice was given of this clause about three weeks ago, and it was then considered to provide a fair alternative to be given to the landlord.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he thought the 3rd clause sufficient in itself without the addition of the proposed new clause, which he conceived was calculated to lead to litigation.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, that this clause was not absolutely necessary, but it was modelled on the provisions of other clauses, and the Court would have to determine whether the terms of the transaction were just.
§ MR. O'REILLYsaid, he thought that the arrangement contemplated was one which did not require to be authorized by a clause in an Act of Parliament.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member that the clause was unnecessary, and that it was advisable the arrangement should be made out of Court. He had no desire to press the clause.
§ Clause negatived.
§ MR. KAVANAGHsaid, that, in consequence of the course taken by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in withdrawing his clause, he would have to move as a new clause the Amendment of which he had given Notice, as an addition to that which was withdrawn. He begged to move the following clause to follow Clause 3:—
Provided always, That in the event of any tenant holding from year to year, assigning his interest in his holding without the knowledge and consent of his landlord, the tenant coming into possession of such holding shall not be entitled to any compensation under Clause 3 of this Act, if evicted within one year from the date of the making of such assignment, or of his taking possession of such holding.He thought this clause was required, because as the Bill now stood it would be quite competent for any tenant-at-will to assign over his holding to anyone he chose without even consulting his landlord. It was not easy at first to realize to the full the dangerous nature of such a principle. He would endeavour in a few words to explain it, leaving the rights of property out of the question for the present. By giving a tenant this power they struck a fatal blow at a landlord in his capacity 776 of a preserver of the public peace and order, which he had always regarded, speaking as a landlord, as one of their most important duties. By Clause 3 they imposed a heavy fine upon a landlord if, for the purposes of peace and order, he disturbed a tenant for gross misconduct. That was bad enough; but without some such proviso as he proposed the landlord would for the future cease to have a voice in the selection of those who were to be his tenants. The very worst characters might be forced upon him, to get rid of whom he would have to incur all the penalties in Clause 3, although they might have been brought in upon his estate in direct opposition to his will. It was taking from the landlord a power which he never could use harshly, as its being used at all would depend upon the tenant's own wish; but which gave him a most salutary and essential influence in keeping objectionable persons off his property. Even if it were not unjust it would seem to be most unwise; but, regarding it by test of justice, it appeared to be one of the greatest blots in this measure, an unwarrantable violation of the rights of property, and perfectly indefensible on the plea of being requisite for the proper working of this Bill, unless the Bill contained some hidden principle which Her Majesty's Government had not had the candour to avow. As far as his knowledge of its nature and purpose went, he regarded it as having for its object the securing to a tenant the value of his improvements, and affording him protection against capricious eviction. They had already granted that. But he wanted to know upon what plea it could be urged that it was, he would not say right, but even expedient, to give a tenant power to dispose of what was not his to whom he liked. It was one thing to protect him in his existing interest; it was a widely different matter to give him the power to assign over to another—without the knowledge and consent of the real owner—those interests which only upon the plea of expediency were his so long as he was individually content to enjoy them. To give one man the power to give away or dispose of what belonged to another, not only without the knowledge, but contrary to the wishes of the rightful owner, was a doctrine which he could hardly believe it would be possible to have raised in that House. He did not 777 think that the Committee could be fully alive to the extraordinary injustice of such a principle; indeed, he almost dared to hope that up to this Her Majesty's Government had failed to appreciate its full meaning, and that when they did they would hesitate to endorse it, fraught as it was with the grossest injustice and directly opposed to every axiom of political economy. In drawing the Amendment he had limited the time to one year, during which the man coming into the holding without the knowledge or consent of the landlord should be liable to be evicted without having a right to claim for disturbance; because, he thought, that, no matter how slily the arrangement might have been made, if the property was so carelessly managed that within that time the landlord or his agent had failed to discover the transfer of the tenancy, they deserved to suffer for it; if they had discovered it, and had taken no steps about it, it might fairly be assumed that they had consented to it. So that if a tenant, notwithstanding having surreptitiously got possession of a holding, remained in it for a period of over one year undisturbed, he would then be in exactly the same position as the other tenants on the property.
§ New Clause (Tenant assigning without consent of landlord not to be entitled to compensation,)—(Mr. Kavauagh,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, this was really a proviso to be added to Clause 3, the object being to prevent a tenant from year to year from assigning his holding without the consent of the landlord, or, if he did so, to deprive him of the benefits conferred by the Bill. Such a provision would be inconsistent with the principles which had been announced from the Treasury Bench.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, the Amendment would repeal the existing law, which allowed every tenant from year to year to assign, his estate and interest being transmissible just like the largest estate.
§ MR. BOURKEsaid, it was true that this was an interest assignable by law; but the question was whether the assignee, who might in some cases be an extremely bad character, should be entitled to all the powers and benefits conferred by this Act.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the existing law gave unlimited power to a tenant from year to year to assign, subject only to the counter-power on the part of the landlord to give the assignee immediate notice to quit. The Amendment was founded on the supposition that the landlord under the Bill would be unable to get rid of an objectionable assignee. But this question had been raised already in an earlier stage of the Bill, and was decided against the proposal now made. The Government believed that the Bill as it stood would not take away the landlord's power of preventing an improper assignment, as it would be, of course, the duty of the Court to consider under what circumstances an assignment had been made, and whether the assignee was or was not a good and solvent tenant. The probability was that the assignee was more solvent than the old tenant, because it was usually an embarrassed tenant who disposed of his holding to one better able to pay his way.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he knew that in England a leasehold was a chattel interest; but he should like to know from the Solicitor General what was the law in Ireland on this point. It seemed to him that the tendency of the Bill was to give the tenant an estate out of that which was only a chattel.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)The hon. Member says he knows the law of England on this point. The law of Ireland is the same.
§ MR. PIMsaid, he wished the Committee to well consider whether or not by the clause a new tenant would be entitled to all compensation the same as an old one. He proposed to meet that objection by a clause recognizing the right of the tenant, but providing the landlord should be entitled to pre-emption.
§ COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, the Government had shown no reasonable objection to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow. The only valid argument which had been raised against it was that which had been urged by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) who said that it would interfere with the existing law. The fact was, however, that the whole Bill interfered with the existing law, and would probably create anarchy in Ireland.
§ MR. AGAR-ELLISsaid, he did not attach much importance to the clause; but it would make it clear that the tenant had better not come in without the consent of the landlord.
§ DR. BALLsaid, he should protest against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow being held in suspense until the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) had brought forward his clause, because he had not much confidence in its being moved, and when moved of its being pressed to a Division. He thought that the power proposed to be given to the tenant to bring in an assignee without the landlord's consent might not always operate to the benefit of the tenant himself. When a tenant sold his interest in his holding he did so generally under the pressure of difficulties; and if he were in that position, some artful neighbour of his, possessed of ready money, might take advantage of it, and give him but a very small sum for that which he wanted to part with, feeling secure against the landlord.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he would carry the argument of the right hon. and learned Member a little further, and point out that if a tenant who was a little embarrassed wished to go to a neighbouring town to set up in business, or to emigrate to America, and could dispose of his holding in a bonâ fide way to a bonâ fide purchaser, the clause of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh) would throw a great impediment in his way. Its effect, indeed, would be that the whole country would be covered with notices of ejectment, while all that the hon. Member really aimed at would substantially be provided for by the Bill as it stood. He hoped, therefore, the clause would be withdrawn.
§ MR. KAVANAGHsaid, he had heard no argument to convince him that a person had a right to sell his property. He could not assent to the withdrawal of the clause; but it was, of course, in the power of the Committee to negative it.
§ MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, he looked upon it as of the utmost importance that a tenant of bad character should not be admitted as a tenant on a well-regulated estate; but he must confess he was not prepared to agree to so sweeping a clause as that now pro- 780 posed. He was of opinion, however, that provision ought to be made to enable the landlord to bring forward his objections, in the event of an improper person being about to be introduced upon his property.
§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, it would be in the recollection of the Committee that he had proposed an Amendment to the effect that compensation under Clause 3 should not be given when just and reasonable cause for eviction was shown. If some such words were introduced much ambiguity would, he thought, be removed. He understood the Government would consider whether that object could not be attained by the introduction of words into the Equities Clause, and he engaged, in the event of their not doing so, to propose the insertion of words for the purpose. He confessed he was not entirely satisfied that any of the words in the 14th clause would meet the particular point under discussion; for, as it appeared to him, the questions contemplated, by that clause were those arising between the landlord and the immediate tenant making a claim, whereas, in the case supposed, the assignee would be the person who made the claim; and, certainly, he did not know that there would be anything unreasonable on the part of the latter in accepting an assignment which the outgoing tenant was, by law, capable of granting. At present, he merely threw out these suggestions for the consideration of the Government.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 192: Majority 72.
§ MR. BAGWELLsaid, that the Committee had agreed to throw over every principle of political economy; but he doubted whether the object in view would be attained by the measure as it stood. The people of Ireland wanted security of tenure; but the Bill insured them only a certainty of litigation, without satisfying anyone or preventing the continuance of crime. His remedy was to give the tenant the legal right to remain possessed of his holding as long as he was able to pay the value of the land to the landlord. He had made the same proposal 25 years ago, and it had been a good deal canvassed since; it was that every tenant should have a lease of 21 781 years, renewable for ever. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed, but half the land of Ireland was renewable for ever; and he could assure the Committee that if his clause was agreed, to it would put an end to all the Irish difficulties, and make the people of Ireland happy and contented. He would beg to move, in page 1, to leave out Clause 2, and insert the following clause:—
(Right to leases renewable for ever.)That every occupying agricultural tenant in Ireland from the passing of this Act shall have a right to a lease of twenty-one years, renewable for ever, with a new valuation for rent at the end of eighteen years, such valuation to be made if necessary by the tribunal hereafter provided, such lease to contain covenants against subdividing without mutual consent of landlord and tenant; tenant to have full permission to sell his interest to the best bidder; tenants' improvements in buildings not to be included in new valuation.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he was surprised to hear the hon. Member condemn a Bill in unqualified terms which, up to the present time—and he said it with gratitude—the hon. Member had uniformly supported. He always thought the hon. Momber took a landlord's view of the question; but his substitute for the Bill—for it was nothing less—was a very extreme and sweeping proposal, and though, he had set it forth in a single clause, it was, in reality, the germ of many clauses. The hon. Member proposed that the House should set aside all that it had done and give tenants leases for ever. This might be a great boon to the tenant, no doubt; but he doubted whether he was entitled to it. The proposed clause was more revolutionary, and did more to upset the relations of landlord and tenant than anything which the Committee had sanctioned, or any hon. Member had proposed.
§ DR. BALLsaid, that the character of the proposal had been accurately described by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but he would suggest that, whatever its fate might be in the House, there were two or three Gentlemen sitting near the hon. Member (Mr. Bagwell) whose own estates would afford an ample area for the experiment to be tried upon. If that were done, and the result were a complete success, no doubt it would have great influence on the decision of the House when the subject was next brought under consideration.
§ Clause negatived.
782§ MR. M'MAHONsaid, he would beg to move, after Clause 4, to insert the following clause:—(Repeal of s. 31 of the Landlord and Tenant Act). "Section 31 of the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment (Ireland) Act, 1860, is hereby repealed." By that section tenants in Ireland were prohibited from cutting down, lopping, or topping any trees growing on the land they occupied, unless they had the special authority of the landlord for doing so. The prohibition extended even to trees that they had themselves planted, unless they had taken the precaution to register them. He only desired, by the repeal of this section, to assimilate the law of Ireland in this respect to that which prevailed in England.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, the Act sought to be repealed had an exceedingly vexatious operation.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, that the Government could not consent to the proposal. It might well be that the provisions of the Act in question, and the 31st section in particular, required revision; but the subject had no affinity with the objects of the Land Bill, and could not be conveniently dealt with under it.
§ DR. BALLsaid, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that a clause in reference to the Trees and Timber Acts of Ireland could not be conveniently introduced into the Bill; but he was of opinion that these Acts required revision, and he hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would soon, be able to turn his attention to the subject.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. PIMmoved, after Clause 5, to insert a new clause (Right of a tenant to dispose of interest in his holding).
§ Clause negatived.
§ MR. MORRISONsaid, that as the new clauses of which he had given Notice related to the same subject as those of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), it might be convenient that the discussion on both should be taken at the same time.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.