§ Order for Third Reading read.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYSir, I am not going to detain the House from coming to a conclusion on a business which has occupied it so long; but I think it necessary to say a few words on the Bill before it leaves this House. I believe the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and his Friends will admit that from this side of the House there has been no opposition that could in any sense be called factious. We took Divisions only on points of primary importance, and I think it will not be denied that much of the delay to the progress of the Bill has proceeded from the right hon. Gentleman's own side of the House. Now, Sir, with regard to the Bill itself, I must first say that in my opinion it has been made better than it was when introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill, however, still contains principles to which I strongly object, and which, I trust, will be amended elsewhere. Certain points of the measure are of such importance, that I hope the House will permit me briefly to advert to them. The first point in the Bill, with regard to which I have never felt any doubt or objection, is that which proposes to render legal the Ulster tenant-right. I, however, take exception to that which has been added to the Bill since its introduction into this House—namely, that in the case where the tenant has agreed with his landlord as to a certain mode of dealing on a change of tenancy, an option should be given him to elect whether he will place himself under the Ulster tenant-right or under the 3rd clause of the Bill. The Bill gives him power to throw aside that which you yourselves have given him, and to resort to another method of recovering compensation than that which has been marked out under the previous part of the Bill. That, in my opinion, is an unnecessary provision to introduce, making the Bill even more exceptionable than it was before. Passing over the 2nd clause, which is practically the 1600 same as the first, I come to the 3rd clause. Looking at that clause as laying down the principle that there shall be damages given for the removal of a tenant from is holding, I think it is objectionable in principle. But I cannot conceal from myself that Irish gentlemen have, as a rule, acted towards their tenants upon a liberal and generous system. When their tenants have been disturbed in their holdings the landlords in many parts of Ireland have given liberally—I believe, in some cases, even more liberally than is provided for by the scale under the Bill; not exactly as a compensation, but as a charitable act towards their tenants, who have thus been enabled to settle in other parts of the country or to emigrate at their option. It seems to me, however, an unreasonable thing that that which has been done voluntarily and very generally should become compulsory upon every landlord in Ireland, and this under conditions which do not allow the parties to exempt themselves from its operation under any circumstances. By the law as laid down in this Bill, tenants of holdings under a £50 rental are precluded from entering into any relations with their landlords other than those provided for by the Bill. And it is a remarkable thing that the Bill having originally laid down that non-payment of rent should disentitle the tenant to compensation, it now declares that, under special circumstances, the matter shall be considered by the Court—that is to say, that non-payment of rent shall no longer be regarded as a sufficient ground for removal of the tenant from his holding, and this although under the wording of the Bill the rent may be already two years in arrear. It is a curious thing that when the Government made such a point of the inability of the tenants to contract with their landlords, that then, in the later stages of the Bill and just before it left the House, a clause should have been inserted in it which proves that the Government feel that the tenants are in a position to contract with their landlords upon the very important subject of the right of distraint. If the tenant is not in a position to contract with his landlord upon other matters connected with his holding, I do not see how he can be in a better position to contract with respect to the very difficult question of the landlard's power to distrain for ar- 1601 rears of rent. I pass from that point to the question of improvements, and although the Bill with reference to this part of the subject has been very much modified and amended, still I object to it, inasmuch as it throws retrospectively the onus of showing that he made improvements upon the landlord. In my opinion it is the tenant who makes the claim who should be required to adduce the affirmative proof necessary to support that claim. Of course, there can be no objection to the Bill laying down the course by which persons are to be guided in future; but, as far as its retrospective effect is concerned, I think such a provision is most objectionable. There is another point to which I have already called the attention of the House, which, is this—No doubt, it is only reasonable that a tenant should have power to assign his tenancy, but does it not seem an unreasonable provision that, supposing that the tenant is about to be ejected for good cause, he should have power, at the last moment, to assign his tenancy to an incoming tenant against whom the landlord has no reasonable cause of complaint, and who, therefore would be entitled to full compensation under the 3rd clause of the Bill? It is clear that the Bill has not provided that no transfer shall be allowed to take place after notice to quit has been given. When the Bill was first brought forward I called attention to the litigation that was likely to ensue under its provisions, and I hope that the Government will, when the Bill is in "another place," endeavour to see whether unnecessary litigation may not be prevented. The tenant, on quitting his holding, will undoubtedly send in the highest possible claim for compensation, acting on the assumption that weak arbitrators frequently think to meet the justice of the case by splitting the difference between the amounts named by the two parties. Under Clause 14, the moment a single item of the tenant's claim is disputed, a dispute is declared to have arisen, and the Court, or arbitrator, alone has power to settle the matter, and no contract can be entered into between the landlord and the tenant whereby the claim of the latter can be invalidated. It is almost impossible to escape from expensive litigation under the Bill as it now stands. I would, therefore, ask the Government whether they may not deem 1602 it advisable to consider whether it is not very important that greater freedom of contract should be allowed—at all events between the period when the notice to quit is given and the time when the tenant leaves the holding? It is impossible that the tenant, who in negotiating would have the 3rd clause at his back, could suffer any disadvantage in entering into a contract with the view of avoiding future litigation. Then, under, the 23rd section, the limited owner appears to have greater power given him to agree with his tenant as to the amount of compensation than the owner in fee is to have. [Mr. GLADSTONE made a gesture of dissent.] The right hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head; but I am not alone in the opinion I have formed upon that point. At all events, if the Act is doubtful upon the question it ought to be rendered more clear. I have already expressed my opinion upon the part of the Bill which relates to the purchase of the holdings by the tenants, which I regard as being highly objectionable; but, the House having approved that principle by a large majority, I do not intend to trouble it with any further observations in respect to it. Finding the Bill still very objectionable, I have to ask myself whether the objects that are to be gained by it are of such great importance as to render it unadvisable to offer further opposition to it. If I believed that the Bill would have the good effect predicted by the right hon. Gentleman and others, even perhaps in a more remote future than they refer to, I should be prepared to overlook many of the objectionable provisions that it contains, and to give up even a great deal more than has been given up on this side. I, however, never can believe that when you do injustice to one party for the sake of benefiting another you are acting upon principles that will bring about a permanent peace. On the contrary, although by adopting such a course you may, as by indiscriminate almsgiving, satisfy your conscience for the moment, and apparently be acting with generosity, you are really doing a great deal of harm. I believe this Bill will, instead of satisfying the people of Ireland, rather encourage them to ask for more, and that, therefore, you will fail to attain your object of restoring peace and harmony to Ireland, which you can only secure by meting out equal justice to all. Am I, then, prepared on 1603 these accounts to oppose the third reading of this Bill? No, I am not, because I should be extremely sorry that there should not be legislation upon the subject this Session, and because the Bill is now going to a House in which it will be discussed by those who themselves are deeply interested in the property of Ireland; and I hope it will there receive that fair consideration, and amendment which, without making it unacceptable to this House, will improve it for the benefit of the whole of Ireland. It is with that hope and that expectation I refrain from being a party to opposing the Bill at this stage; and, although I have a strong feeling that many of its provisions are unwise, it is my ardent prayer that it may confer those benefits which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government hopes it may.
§ MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would not have interposed at this stage of the Bill but for the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, which he thought were of enormous importance as regarded the future of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not intend to oppose the third reading; but he suggested an amount of opposition which might be fatal to the measure, and create a most deplorable state of things throughout the country. He (Mr. Maguire) hoped the Bill was about to leave the House finally, and that discussion upon it was at an end; and, in the hope that this would really be the case, he asked the House to consider why the Bill had become necessary, and how far it was likely to fulfil the object for which it was designed. For nearly 50 years past the grave and active mischief in Ireland was insecurity of tenure, despite the existence of good landlords, whose word was as good as their bond. This abiding sense of insecurity, coupled with a system of agriculture more backward than that of any other country, had caused thousands, and even millions to emigrate, and had fostered a feeling among the people that they were the victims of British law and British tyranny, and, as many of them conceived, of British hate. A Roman Catholic Bishop, of great moderation, who would hail this Bill with satisfaction, and had given wise advice to the people, had testified to him of the feeling of bitterness with which Irish emigrants left their native land, and, on the authority of a friend in the United States, he was 1604 assured that this feeling of hostility to England continued. He believed it would require many years of liberal and kind treatment of Ireland to eradicate that feeling from the Irish heart, and when that was done, and not until then, would they see the end of the Irish difficulty. The popular demand for fixity of tenure meant nothing more than what was at present the custom on many estates, but Parliament declined to grant that. Still, he believed, that, when properly understood, the Bill ought to satisfy the wants of the Irish people. It was not as much as he would ask for them, or endeavour to get; but it was impossible for any Government to pass a Bill more advanced than that the House was sending to the Lords. The right hon. Gentleman was right in saying the measure had not been factiously opposed from his side of the House; but it had been seriously opposed, and the opposition now foreshadowed was the most serious of all. He (Mr. Maguire) promised to urge his constituents to accept the Bill as it stood; but if it were cut down, mutilated, and deprived of its protecting properties the consequences would be melancholy and disastrous. If the other House obliged the rejection of the measure as unfit for the emergency, a fierce and violent agitation would be the result, to end no one knew how. Neither he nor many of his friends would join such an agitation; but there were men of a certain class in Ireland who would scoff at the people as dupes for having faith in the English Parliament and in English justice; a deep feeling of dissatisfaction would be raised and assume an active state, justified by the hopes Parliament had raised only to dash them to the ground. Ireland wanted repose, and there would be sufficient occupation for active politicians for some time to come in explaining the provisions of this Bill to those who did not understand it—in opposition to those who would not, and those who would prefer to misrepresent it—without having to oppose professional agitators. He did not believe the Bill would give rise to angry litigation, but litigation must, of course, result if persons could not agree; and what the Bill did was to lay down a good broad agrarian law to guide the Judges in their decisions. He could not think that the effect of the Bill would be to increase emigration. 1605 On the contrary, he believed that if the occupier had a hope of security he would look forward to passing his life in his native land. The Bill would not interfere with the good landlords; it would only compel the bad ones to act more justly towards their tenants. The right hon. Gentleman urged that, because the Bill contained a clause empowering the landlord and tenant to come to an agreement between themselves as to the question of distress, therefore there ought to be no interference with any contract between them. For his own part he should like to see the law of distress abolished; but he did not think that the clause referred to was worth the paper it was written on. Indeed, the proposal was uncommonly like a mockery. To the question whether the Bill would be accepted by the people of Ireland, his reply was that if carried in its present state it would, he believed, produce a beneficial effect, and he must testify to the earnest desire of English and Scotch Members around him to make the measure work for the good of Ireland, Provided the Bill passed in its present form, he would do all he could to reconcile his countrymen to their disappointment at not having obtained all they desired. This question could not be re-opened for years to come, and it therefore became the duty of every Irishman, who loved his country, and who desired to promote peace and order, without which there could be no progress, to render the measure as acceptable as possible to his countrymen.
§ SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEsaid, he thought the hon. Member had better have waited till the Bill came back from "another place" before making the remarks with which he had favoured the House as to the reception it was likely to meet with there. The hon. Member had paid a compliment which was fairly deserved by Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House when he stated that, although landowners themselves, they had endeavoured to consider the Government proposals with fairness and impartiality, and without selfishness. When the Bill went to "another place," it would, he felt assured, receive from the distinguished individuls who formed that House the same consideration it had received in the House of Commons. No tenants in any part of the world had ever been so favoured as the Irish farmers would be by this Bill; but although the 1606 measure contained many provisions the policy of which was more than doubtful, still, on the whole, the question had become an Imperial one, and it was necessary for the Government to see how it could be dealt with. As these provisions had given rise to hopeful expectations in Ireland he was unwilling to throw any obstacles in the way of their passing. The English and Scotch Members generally, he believed, had been actuated by the same feeling. He particularly wished, however, to recall to the remembrance of the House the fact that the charges brought against the landlords as to the number of evictions and the harsh treatment of tenants had not been substantiated. The boon conferred on Irish tenants by this Bill was enormous. No one could indeed look carefully through the Bill without being struck with the circumstance that all the benefits were on one side. Almost every presumption in favour of the owners of property had been reversed. Having always felt, however, that a half measure would do more harm than good, he trusted to the good feeling of the Government to introduce certain alterations into the Bill; but he regretted to say that of all the proposals made on that side of the House not one of the smallest importance had been accepted. While we were holding out such large promises to Ireland, the wanton disturbances now going on in Canada formed a commentary on much that had been said respecting the causes of Irish disaffection. It was, of course, ridiculous to suppose that Fenianism could be cured by any legislation of this kind; but he trusted the Government would strictly and firmly administer the law of the land and not encourage the idea which had been prevalent in Ireland for many years past, that every misfortune of the country was to be cured by legislation. Everyone ought to share in the sentiment of the Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) that there should be no more legislation for Ireland, but that peace should be established in the country. As to the Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), who had devoted some years to attacking the Irish Church and the owners of land, he hoped the hon. Gentleman, following the advice of a noble Earl (Earl Russell), in "another place" in reference to another matter, would now "rest and be thankful." Let any Englishman put 1607 himself in the position of an Irish landlord. How would he like to see the Church of his country disestablished and disendowed, and to be told that it was the duty of the landowners to display their liberality by re-endowing the Church? What had occurred in the last two years was enough to make every good man despair. He earnestly hoped, however that Ireland would no longer be made the battle-field of party or a practising ground for Government to make their legislative experiments upon. As to the landlords, though they might be placed in a somewhat unfair position, he felt assured they would do their best, and the increased prosperity of the country would be an adequate return for any sacrifices they might make; while, he trusted, the tenants would show themselves worthy of the boon conferred on them by the Bill, by becoming industrious and prudent. As to the labourers what had been done done for them? Nothing. He could only say, as someone else had said in that House—"God help the labourers." A day he hoped would come when something would be done for them also. As to the Bill tending to put a stop to emigration, all he could say was that of all the absurd modes which could be devised for that purpose, none could be more absurd than the subdivision of land into minute plots, at a time when the price of provisions was constantly rising, and when it could not be expected that men would rest contented with a wretched pittance. It would be found that so long as the temptation of high wages and constant employment existed on the other side of the Atlantic, and so long as no adequate means of livelihood were to be derived from the pursuit of trade or commerce, men would not be satisfied with the subsistence to be drawn from a few miserable acres of land at home; and that no legislation, however just, would stop that stream of emigration from the shores of Ireland which was sapping the lifeblood of the Empire.
§ MR. BRYANsaid, he did not rise to oppose the third reading of the Bill. A Motion of this kind would, he thought, come better from those Irish Members who had voted against his Amendment on the second reading, and who then stated that unless the Bill were so modified in Committee as to meet their views they would not assent to its passing its final stage. In the absence of any op- 1608 position, however, on their part on the present occasion, he must, he supposed, take it for granted that in their opinion the Bill met all the requirements of Ireland. In that view he, however, could not concur with them; for he did not think the Bill had been much improved in Committee, and he could not allow the third reading to pass without expressing his great regret that Her Majesty's Government had not thought it their duty to introduce a clause for the amelioration of the condition of the agricultural labourer in Ireland—a class in whose behalf legislation was for some time imperatively demanded. It had been, he might add, stated by more than one Member of the Government that the Bill was growing in favour in Ireland from day to day. Such, however, was not the nature of the information which reached him from that country. But, upon that point, he would merely observe that, believing it be honestly meant, no one could rejoice more than himself if it were, in practice, found to be a panacea for the discontent of the tenant; and should that happy consummation be the result of its enactment, no one would acknowledge his error with greater humility.
MR. GLADSTONESir, the point—the advanced point, happily—which we have reached in the progress of this Bill is one of great importance, and it is desirable to take some notice of the position in which we stand. I cannot be at all surprised, therefore—nor do I make any complaint—that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) should have made use of this opportunity to state the objections which he feels to the measure; and to state, further, the hopes which he entertains that those objections may be removed by alterations made in "another place." There was, indeed, a phrase he used which was most ominous in its character; but I do not think it ought, from the subsequent tenour of his speech, to have a very literal construction placed on it. I allude to the sentence in which he declared that there were principles in the Bill which he thought ought, in some degree, to be amended. Now, it is not for me to seek to limit the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman. He has a perfect right to desire that amendments or alterations should be made in any way in which they can be legitimately 1609 introduced in the principles of the Bill. It is, however, impossible for the Government to hear the expression of his opinion upon that point without feeling that any alteration in those principles, in the sense which he has indicated, would deprive the measure of all its force and value. But with respect to the particular points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think it necessary that I should go over them all in detail. In one or two instances, I think it is plain his objections may be removed by a mere statement; or, if they be well founded, we should offer no objection to removing them in any other manner. He says, for example, that there will be much unnecessary litigation under the Bill, because after a dispute has arisen the parties will have no power to retire from it. Now, that is entirely contrary to our opinion. There is nothing whatsoever, it seems to us, independently of the power of arbitration and the proceedings of the Court, to prevent the parties from coming to an agreement and dropping the prosecution of their dispute at the very outset. Who, I am at a loss to know, will there be to prosecute? If both parties retire, our belief is that any arrangement made between them, after they have entered into the dispute, will be as effectual as if they had entered into an agreement without any dispute whatever. As to any changes in that clause in the Bill which provides that non-payment of rent under special circumstances should not be a bar to a claim for disturbance, the right hon. Gentleman cannot, I am sure, forget that it is entirely limited to tenancies already in existence. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was inconsistent in my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) to have introduced a clause into the Bill permitting a tenant hereafter to contract in regard to the process of recovering rent by means of distress when the general operation of the Bill was to destroy freedom of contract. I think the right hon. Gentleman has erroneously stated the principle of the Bill. Its principle, as a rule, is to leave freedom of contract, and it is only with respect to particular matters in the 3rd clause that it is interfered with. By any contract made by any tenant, from the day the Bill receives the Royal Assent, to pay any rent whatsoever reasonable or un- 1610 reasonable, he will be absolutely bound, and he will not be able to escape from the obligation. I was not, I may add, surprised at the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman; but I own I was somewhat surprised that the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir Frederick W. Heygate) should have found fault with my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) for saying that he hoped the Bill would not be altered in "another place" in a sense opposed to his views, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had just expressed a hope that it would be altered in accordance with his views, and that the hon. Baronet himself went on to exhibit his sense of the value of the complaint which he made regarding my hon. Friend the Member for Cork by imitating the example of the right hon. Gentleman near him. Surely, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. But, leaving matters of detail, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford has stated his general view of this measure, there are two or three propositions to which I would wish to call his attention. I will not ask him to re-call his charge—which has been echoed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry—that this is a one-sided Bill against the landlord and in favour of the tenant; but I will just point out this fact, that for generations and centuries legislation has been almost entirely in favour of the landlord. What has been the result? What is the position of the landlord in regard to security of life, security of property, and in regard to the price which his estate will fetch in the market? And when we find the result has been what it is, of the adoption of the too one-sided policy pursued by Parliament in former generations, will not the right hon. Gentleman bring himself to admit that legislation in favour of the tenant for the purpose of giving him security in the prosecution of his industry may turn out to be the best and surest method of legislating for the interest of the landlord? But that is a disputed matter, and I cannot ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree in our views as to the operation of the Bill in that particular, however strong may be the conviction on the point which we ourselves entertain. I wish, however, to state that in framing this measure we 1611 deliberately and advisedly declined to meet the popular demands in Ireland. There can be no question at all as to what those demands were. There were demands widely spread that the Ulster custom should be recognized as the universal land law of Ireland. To that demand we declined to accede, and we have refused to admit into the Bill the recognition of any custom out of Ulster as the Ulster custom, unless we found it to possess in the most stringent way all the characteristics of that custom. Another demand which went though the whole of Ireland was one for the valuation of rents and for fixity of tenure, and there are those who say that valuation of rents is involved in the Bill as it stands. Now, that is true where the Ulster custom prevails up to a certain point; but that case does not stand on the ground of conventional legislation, but on the recognition of rights already in existence. I contend that the principle of the 3rd clause, establishing damages for eviction, is entirely different from the principle of the valuation of rents. It places a burden, I admit, on the landlord who evicts without a cause; but that burden is limited and cannot go beyond a certain point. A valuation of rents would fix the absolute amount of rent that should be paid; the amount under the Bill is left wholly free, and the fine or burden that may be levied on the landlord is confined within the limit of a certain maximum. It is, notwithstanding, well known in Ireland, and the speech of the hon. Member for Kilkenny county (Sir John Gray) is a sufficient proof of it—that we declined to found our Bill on the principle of the valuation of rents. We, therefore, advisedly declined to accede to those popular demands. We have declined to accede to them, and having brought in a Bill founded upon a distinct and much more limited basis, we have presented it to the House after an amount of labour on our own part such as in the course of a long political life I have never known bestowed on the preparation of a Bill; and I must add, entirely agreeing in the main upon this point with the right hon. Gentleman, that the House of Commons, which has spent 22 or 23 nights in the discussion of the Bill, has bestowed on it an amount of care, attention, and time for which there are but few precedents; but this, so far from being matter of 1612 reproach, was amply warranted and even demanded by the gravity, magnitude, and intricacy of the case, and we are thankful to the House for the assistance we have received. The hon. Baronet opposite says that no Amendment of importance has been received from that side of the House. But when an Amendment was proposed we have not asked ourselves from which side it came; at all events, this is a statement which the hon. Baronet will not question—that many Amendments have been made in the Bill tending to render it more acceptable or less unacceptable to him and those who think with him. I would also ask the House to consider whether we have not framed a measure of which we can fairly allege that when it comes into operation it will do so without shock to any interest in Ireland. I know of nothing that it would be incumbent upon any man, be he landlord or tenant, to do under the clauses of this Bill—I mean in the way of exercising legal powers—after it becomes law. What I hope will be is this—that the tenant will prosecute his industry with a greater sense of confidence; that the landlord will find the benefit of that increased industry in the augmented value of his property, and that the labourer, for whom it seems to be supposed that we ought to have invented some nostrum, will receive some advantage in the only important way in which it is possible for Parliament to confer it—in the greater demand for what he has to sell, the strength that lies in the muscles of his arm. That gentle mode of operation which we have tried to secure is, I believe, likely to characterize the action of this Bill when it becomes law, and to it I trust the words of Dryden on another subject may be applicable—
The flood of mercy that o'erflowed our isle, Calm in the rise, and fruitful as the Nile.It is by that imperceptible action on the community of Ireland that we hope this Bill, when it becomes law, will be characterized, and not by sudden and violent change, least of all by producing any results which might tend to aggravate animosity or to create mistrust between class and class. I am glad to record that from the great body of those who opposed us on the second reading, the representatives of popular sentiments and principles in Ireland, without any compromise of their liberty, after many 1613 attempts made in the spirit of perfect fairness for more extended legislation, we have received the most valuable support. They have been content to accept a measure which many of them think less, much less, than they would have been entitled in absolute justice to demand; and not only have they been content to act in that way in this House, but they have energetically used all the influence they possess in Ireland to propagate among the people the sentiments by which they themselves are animated. We have every reason, therefore, to hope that those in whom the mass of the Irish occupiers have been accustomed to repose their confidence, whether persons sitting in this House or others—in short, all classes resident in Ireland—will give to the State their best assistance in carrying this Bill, should it become law, into happy operation, and in making it the means of restoring that confidence in the law, and the public authority, the want of which is the greatest of all Irish difficulties and at the bottom of all Irish mischiefs. I am bound to say that the moderation of spirit which has generally characterized the conduct of Irish Members on this side of the House—and justice requires me to say the same of a large number of Irish Members on the other side also—has imposed upon us the higher obligation to be faithful to those who have been faithful to the public interests, and, having striven in every way to frame the matter of this Bill, not in the interests of one party, but in a large and equitable spirit, to use our best efforts to maintain it in its integrity and efficiency. And I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, surveying in one single glance, and with rapidity, the Amendments to which he has adverted, and considering the gravity of the motives which render it necessary for the public interest that this Bill should pass into law, is it worth while, for the sake of points like those he has raised—even if we could accede more than we can to the view that he takes, to risk the miscarriage of this great undertaking? For it is a great undertaking, upon which the Imperial Parliament has thought it worth while—nay, has thought it its duty and honour—to spend more than half a Session, and great will be the responsibility of those who should prevent the work from attaining the desired consummation. Now, 1614 Sir, what are the sentiments which seem to predominate in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as he is an objecting party to the provisions of this Bill? It is that they import some injustice to the Irish landlord. But I put to the right hon. Gentleman this question, and I found myself on the conduct of the Irish landlords in this House for the opinion I entertain—Suppose we could gather the Irish landlords in a mass, and obtain from them, honestly, their judgment whether they would prefer the Bill, on the one hand, as it stands, or, on the other, the state and prospects of Ireland were the Bill to be rejected or to be mutilated in a manner to ensure its rejection, and we were to put to these Irish landlords, categorically, the question—"Will you take it as it is, or will you have it lost?" I may be wrong; but my firm conviction is, that the cry of these landlords would be—"Let the Bill pass into law!" There is no doubt that the settlement of questions of this kind should be governed by a studious moderation; that is essential in order to make it tolerable to a country which is distinguished for its attachment to the stability of property as much as its attachment to the principles of law and order. It is therefore, I think, that my hon. Friends who represent the popular party in Ireland have so often, even with cheerfulness, acquiesced in our declining to accede to what we felt to be extreme demands—demands which they knew the people of Great Britain would never have agreed to. Excesses we have endeavoured to avoid; but it would be idle—it would be conferring no benefit upon anyone—it would be fatal to our own character—it would be injurious to the reputation of Parliament, it would be hostile to the interests of the Irish landlord—were we to attempt to induce Parliament to pass an ineffectual measure. Of course, we may have erred in our attempts to realize that just moderation of view which lies between violence, on the one hand, and feebleness on the other; but we have not erred from want of upright intention or of studied labour. The aid we have received from the House, bestowed with such unexampled care and patience, and with so much intelligence, knowledge, and ability, has, I confidently think—setting aside those minor touches 1615 which in every work of art, law, or industry, may always be applied with advantage to bring such works to perfection—brought this measure to a state in which, if it be allowed to take its place in the statute book, it will redound to the honour of Parliament and the benefit and security of the Empire.
§ CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, the object of some hon. Members below the Gangway might be described as confiscation pure and simple. Allusion had been made to the overwhelming majorities by which the different clauses of the Bill were carried. But how had these majorities been obtained? Were they obtained from the convictions of hon. Gentlemen that they were voting for what was just or expedient, or were not the clauses carried rather by the force and power of a tyrant and unreasonable majority? He was supported in that view by the leading organ of the Press, which said that English Members in supporting the Government during the progress of the Bill had abnegated their own opinions on every important occasion. The Government found the Province of Ulster peaceable, prosperous, and contented. The relations between landlord and tenant rested there on a sound and healthy basis, and the tenant-right of that district was not the cause but the result and sign of the existence of those happy relations. The Government, by legalizing the Ulster right, had taken a strong step towards destroying that happy state of things to which he had alluded, and which had existed for centuries in that part of Ireland. They had destroyed the rights of property and substituted litigation for peace and contentment. He regarded the measure as unstatesmanlike in its conception, and as likely to act most detrimentally and mischievously upon the welfare of Ireland. No one could more fully acknowledge than he the necessity for some legislation which should give to the tenant security for his improvements—but he must enter his protest against this Bill; and so monstrous and unjust did he think it that he should place his protest on record by dividing the House against the third reading.
§ SIR JOHN GRAYdid not intend to trespass at any length on the indulgence of the House; but he could not remain silent after the allusion made to 1616 the course he pursued in reference to the Irish Church and Irish land questions by the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry. He accepted all the responsibility of the Church agitation and of the land agitation; and he would confidently ask, would the Irish Church be now disestablished and disendowed if that agitation had not been earnestly pursued, or would even the incomplete Land Bill be before them in its present form if public attention had not been awakened on the subject of the tenants' wrongs? When he began the agitation of the Church question in that House, four years ago, the present Ministers were in Office, and all he could get from them, in 1866, was a cold "God speed." In 1867 he got some aid, but not the votes of the Leaders, and the Liberal party was beaten only by 12 in a large House; but, before two years from the date of that Division, religious ascendancy was put an end to by the complete measure introduced by the Prime Minister. The result he was proud to point to now, though he was abundantly sneered at when he first began that agitation. He (Sir John Gray) had hoped the Minister who had given them a complete and final measure on the Church question, would have settled the land question in the same complete and final manner. In this he was disappointed; for, though hon. Members on the other side talked of the Bill as a great concession and a great boon, he would ask what was it but a tardy act of justice? They no doubt, with all the old feudal ideas still fresh in their minds, thought they had made great concessions in allowing the tenant to enjoy the fruit of his own industry. Thanks to the agitation which men were ready to decry in order that the country "might have repose"—and perhaps other "repose" than that of the country was also thought of—the agitation produced the conviction that the tenantry of Ireland would no longer submit to be deprived of the fruits of their industry; and to give them their property was no boon, but a simple act of restitution. The Irish tenantry did not desire to interfere with the landlord's just rights in his property. They asked for no penalties against landlords; for, acting in accordance with law, what they did ask was that the notice to quit, except for statutory causes, should end for ever, 1617 and that so long as the tenant paid his rent and performed all his duties, capricious eviction should be rendered impossible by law instead of being recognized, and the landlord fined for doing that which was legal. This Bill, while fully recognizing principles to which he would not then advert, fell immeasurably short of what it ought to be; but he was, nevertheless, thankful that the Committee had amended the measure so far, and he hoped the House would persevere until they passed a measure of complete justice, and one which should be a full and successful settlement of the land question. This Bill was not such a settlement—it was not, and would not be, accepted by the Irish people as a full settlement. Some hon. Members assured the House that the Bill was looked on with great favour in Ireland by the tenantry, and accepted as a final settlement. He would be the last to detract from the really useful parts of the Bill, to discredit the advantages it would confer, or deny to its authors the full meed of praise for what they had done; but he saw no indication that the Irish tenantry accepted the Bill as a settlement. The Petitions presented in favour of a measure formed the true test of the popular feeling with regard to it. He would apply that test to this measure. When the Minister introduced his Irish Church propositions in 1868 nearly 2,500 Petitions were presented from Ireland, signed by more than 500,000 people. How many Petitions were sent from Ireland in favour of the Land Bill? Not one. The 22nd Report of the Petitions Committee stated that two Petitions had been presented to the House in favour of the Bill, though it was three months before the country, and neither of these came from Ireland—one being a Petition from Scotland, signed by one person; and the other a Petition from Newcastle, also signed by one person. ["Divide."] These might be bitter truths, and disagreeable to have uttered; but it was better for hon. Members to know the truth, and recognize the fact that, whatever the benefits conferred, the Bill was not accepted in Ireland, and would not be accepted as a settlement. The Bill did not deal out the same measure of benefit to all the tenantry; and equality of treatment was the first essential of a settlement of a question by 1618 which all are equally affected. When the Prime Minister introduced this Bill he repudiated the doctrine of fixity of tenure as something so monstrous that no man having regard to the rights of landed proprietors could even consider it, and he promised instead "stability of tenure." But what did the Bill do as modified by the Amendments made in Committee? It actually gave perpetuity of tenure to more than two-fifths of the of the present tenants-at-will in Ireland, and this statement, and these words, "perpetuity of tenure," or rather "perpetual leases," were taken from the Report of the Landlord's Committee, of which many hon. Gentlemen opposite were members, as the true description of the condition in which more than 200,000 tenants would now be under the 1st and 2nd clauses of the Bill, as the consequence of important alterations made. As the Bill was first framed these 200,000 tenants, who have Ulster custom in either North or South, would only be compensated after being evicted like other tenants; but as the altered Bill stands they will have fixed or perpetual tenure, and, as has been admitted to-night by the Premier, valuation rents. ["Divide!"] He would wish to say in the House what he would say outside the House, as to the reason why he I did not, and why the people of Ireland I would not, accept this unequal Bill as a final settlement. When the Bill was read a second time he objected to it, because the tenant-right of Ulster was not secured, and that of the South would be abolished by the Bill as it then stood, and the result would be consolidation of farms. He objected to it now, because, though the clauses which dealt with the custom of continuous occupancy at fair rents were so altered after the exposure of them, that 200,000 tenants obtained perpetuity and valuation of rents, the remnant were still subject to capricious eviction, and had neither stability nor fixity, and because the smaller of these tenants would be liable to be consolidated out of their farms, and converted into that class of labourers whose misery was so well described in the official Reports. He would not be unjust to the Bill or to its authors. It was a Bill most humane and most effective for its purpose of putting an end to the cruelties that heretofore attended on evictions in Ireland, and the details of which so 1619 often harrowed the feelings of that House. These cruelties could never again be repeated, and for that he thanked the Government. No father, with his wife and little ones, could again be cast wantonly into the ditch-side to die in the presence of his ruined cottage; he must at least be provided with means to emigrate, or to obtain shelter and food; and for putting an end for ever to all the torturing cruelties of the eviction process he could find no words too strong to express his approbation. The 200,000 tenants secured perpetuity and valued rents had all they could justly ask—all that he ever asked for the Irish tenant—and his discontent and dissatisfaction were, that the same benefits were not extended to all the Irish tenants. He said, in his speech on the second reading, that he feared the Bill would lead to the consolidation of small farms. As regards the farms held by those excluded from perpetual leases and valued rents, he was of the same opinion still; and he would, with the indulgence of the House, proceed to show that others—many of them persons who did not think as he did, were of the same opinion. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Saunderson), recently in discussing his (Sir J. Gray's) proposal to permit other landlords to do for their tenants what the Bill did for 200,000 of the tenants-at-will, referred to the great number of holdings under 15 acres in Ireland, and asked whether it would be well for that country that such a state of things should remain for all time. He asked would any friend of Ireland stereotype the 15-acre farmer, and in continuation, said that if the Member for Cork City (Mr. Maguire) were in his seat he would ask him whether a farm of 15 acres was a desirable holding, and whether, if they acceded to his (Sir John Gray's) proposition, there was any hope in our time of seeing any alteration in the condition of Ireland. That speech of the hon. Member for Cavan, which in terms declared that the 15-acre farms must be consolidated if there was to be any hope for Ireland under the improved legislation, was applauded in a marked manner by the occupants of the Treasury Bench; and after it was concluded the greatest authority in the House passed on it a most glowing eulogium, which he confessed increased his (Sir John Gray's) conviction as to the ten- 1620 dency of the Bill. But, high as was the authority of the hon. Member for Cavan, a still greater authority on the policy and effect of the Bill—and an authority which Government conld not repudiate—had interpreted the Bill in the same way, and in much more forcible language, in commenting on the speech of the Member for Cavan. The language was so remarkable that he would quote it verbatim. This eminent authority thus wrote on the morning after the debate he referred to—
As Mr. Saunderson pointed out, the plan would likewise have done enormous harm by tending to perpetuate those small holdings, under 15 or 20 acres, on which it is impossible for a family to live save in a state of squalor and starvation. He is the worst enemy of Ireland who would lift a finger to prevent such miserable holdings from being merged in larger farms. The process of extinction must, of course, be made gradual, in order to prevent the hardship which would come from a sudden change; but the doom of the 15-acre farmer is written, and any attempt to put off the day of destruction—as Sir John Gray's clause would have tried to do—is utterly mischievous.These were the words of, and this the interpretation given to the Bill by the admittedly powerful morning organ of the Government. If words have meaning, these words declare that to tolerate holdings of 15 and 20 acres would destroy the policy of the Bill, and that the effort to do so by some of the Irish Members was "utterly mischievous." The men who would prolong the existence of the 20-acre farmer are described as the worst enemies of Ireland and of the measure of the Government. They were thus semi-officially informed that the doom of the 15-acre men is "written." Written where? Written in the Bill the writer was discussing; and it is added that the "extinction" and "destruction" of that class of farmers, the 15 and 20-acre tenants, is to be effected painlessly, but with irresistible certainty. Others, then, and those who are supposed to know the mind of the Cabinet, believe that this Bill will prove to be a Bill that will extinguish the 20-acre farmers during the present generation. He (Sir John Gray) did not impute that intention to the Premier, whose humane sentiments and feelings he knew never contemplated such a result. But the provisions of the Bill caused him (Sir John Gray) and the authorities he quoted to conclude that, whatever the intent, this would be the 1621 result. He would be doing a wrong to his own convictions if he said he believed the Government meant it to be so; but he would be equally doing a wrong to his judgment if he did not frankly recognize the conclusiveness of the argument of the leading journal of the Treasury Bench, who objected to permissive tenant-right because it would tend to stop the "extinction" and "destruction" by consolidation of the 20-acre farmers, and their conversion into; exiles or pauper labourers. He would ask them to remember that in Ulster, where the rule henceforth by law was to be perpetual lease and valued rent—in Ulster, the most peaceable and contented, because the most prosperous part of Ireland, the average of all the farms, great and small, was 22 statute acres; yet the 20-acre men were to be extinguished, according to the daily organ of the Government. There were in Ireland 428,000 tenant-farmers whose holdings were valued under £15, which, in fact, represented the class thus doomed to destruction. Would that message content or give peace to the farmers of that class who were not to have fixed tenure or valued rent? Nearly one-half were to have these blessings, the other half were not. This was the blot of the Bill—one that must sooner or later be remedied. He gave all credit for what was done, and only regretted that more comprehensive counsels did not prevail, and that the real boon of perpetuity of tenure and valued rents conferred on one moiety by the Bill was not conferred on all. This was the great blot of the Bill. He honoured the Government for conceding to them in Committee this "fixity of tenure and valued rents" to so large a portion of the tenantry. The blot of its non-extension to the remainder must be cured if there was to be a final settlement of the land question. One word as to the second part of the Bill. The principle of that part was one worthy of all acceptance; but he believed that, in the absence of some compulsory provision, it would never work save only in the cases of compulsory sales in the Court. No landlord having an estate, if divided into 50 or 100 small farms, would sell voluntarily 10 acres to one man, and 20 to another, and so on, creating some 10 or 12 fee-simple owners in the very centre of his estate. The idea was Utopian, as was well-known to every 1622 man who understood the feelings of Irish proprietors and the value set by them on the ring fence, so much prized by the landed gentry everywhere. Some pressure must be put on owners, for the clause could not work unless they gave some such alternative as fixed tenure, or a sale at the full value. If this were done, even with the other defects, the Bill would soon work out a final and satisfactory settlement of the land question of Ireland; otherwise Part II. would be a dead letter.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he had not intended to make a single observation on the third reading of this Bill; but, after the speech of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), he did not think he would be doing his duty, as the representative of one of the largest agricultural constituencies in Ireland, if he remained altogether silent. To a certain extent he agreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny. The Bill was not all that he could have desired it to be. He wished it had a still larger scope, and conferred larger rights on the agricultural population of Ireland; but as one who took a very deep interest in this matter, and had devoted whatever experience he had acquired to the task of improving the measure, he must express his belief that the Bill would have the effect the Government intended. It would put an end to capricious evictions. He was pretty well acquainted with the administration of the existing law, and he knew what the feelings of the people were. What they wanted was protection for their improvements and protection against eviction. He did not say that as a rule evictions were extensively carried out by large proprietors in Ireland but, unquestionably, there were evictions which in too many cases were unjustifiable. He was satisfied that if this Bill became law in the shape it was leaving the House of Commons no long period would have elapsed before the people of Ireland would thank the Government for having passed another great remedial measure. Within the last few days he had had an opportunity of talking to one of the largest landed proprietors in Ireland. The nobleman to whom he referred was a Member of the other House of Parliament, and a man who had been always much opposed to legislative interference with landlords. Well, that noble Lord 1623 agreed with him in thinking that this Bill did not interfere with the landlord who was disposed to act properly, justly, and generously towards his tenants, but only with those proprietors who brought disgrace on their country. He thought that certain Amendments which he had proposed and which the Government had not accepted would have been beneficial; but, in fairness, he must remember that, while refusing to accede to those Amendments, the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench had shown equal determination in resisting Amendments coming from the other side of the House, and which would have trenched on advantages which the Bill gave the tenants. He thanked the Government for the Bill, believing, as he did, that before 12 months it would be generally regarded as a measure worthy to have followed the measure for the disestablishment of the Irish Church, and as one which would contribute to make Ireland prosperous and contented.
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he rose for the purpose of recommending his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fermanagh (Captain Archdall) not to divide the House. He agreed in the views of his hon. and gallant Friend, and had supported those views from the beginning of the discussions on this measure. Day after day, and night after night, he and a number of his hon. Friends attended in that House to do their duty to Ireland as well as they knew how. The House, by large majorities—arrived at in what manner he would not say—had decided that this Bill should go up to "another place" in its present shape. He now asked the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government whether the Conservative Members had not done their duty in a more consistent manner than the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) had discharged what he said was his. What would be the effect of the speech which that hon. Gentleman had just delivered? Had he not given utterance to opinions which, when circulated in Ireland, would be most dangerous to the people whom he professed to love? Half of the mischief which had been brought about in Ireland might be attributed to the expression of such opinions. He thought it right that the Members of that House should speak plainly when they heard such addresses 1624 as that of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He (Colonel Barttelot) and his Friends felt they had discharged their duty. They knew not what would be done with the Bill in "another place;" but if it became law he hoped it might at least, conciliate the Irish nation, and in that spirit he asked his hon. and gallant Friend not to press his Amendment to a Division.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUESir, I do not know whether we are to divide [Captain ARCHDALL: No!]; but I rise to enter my protest against the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray). Part of that speech we do not quarrel with. He has given much time and attention to this Bill, and he has a right to express his opinions on it. He said it would put an end to evictions. [Sir JOHN GRAY: To the cruelty of evictions.] Well, the cruelty of evictions; but he then went on to say, for reasons which I cannot explain, that this was a Bill which would encourage clearance and undue consolidation in Ireland, and that under its operation the small tenantry would disappear. Nothing would induce me to sit in my place and hear such an assertion without at once rising to protest against it. I say further that nothing would induce me—and I can equally answer for my right hon. Friend the First Minister of the Crown and those who act with him—nothing would induce us to frame such a Bill as this if we for one moment believed its operation would be of the cruel character described in the prophecy of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny. I do not know his authority for the statement he has made on this point. He referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan, but when, in his lively and vigorous speech, he (Mr. Saunderson) was applauded by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government and by others on this Bench, we did not cheer him for anything he said on the subject of consolidation, but for the spirit in which as a landlord he accepted this Bill. My hon. Friend referred to some other authority. I do not know what it was, but how any human being can think that a Bill framed for the special protection of poor tenants can deserve the character he has given it passes my comprehension. All the changes made in the Bill with reference to that class of tenants have strengthened 1625 their position. The changes which have modified the provisions relating to tenants refer mainly to the richer and more independent tenants; but as respects protection to the poorer classes of tenants, the Bill has come out of Committee stronger than when it went in. We are now, however, told that a Bill, which will afford exceptional protection to the small tenantry against the cruelties of eviction, is a Bill for their extinction, and the consolidation of their farms. I protest against such a description of the Bill; but I am not at all frightened by the strange views of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. I am sure they are not shared by the small tenants of Ireland. These tenants know very well what they are about; they know who their friends are; and if they have not yet learnt they will before long discover the benefits which this Bill confers on them. They entertain no such views—I call them morbid and distorted views—as those on which my hon. Friend's gloomy vaticinations are founded. It would, indeed, be disheartening to those—and I am not afraid to say that I am one of the number—who have laboured day by day, for many months past, in devising a measure of protection for the Irish tenantry, to find that the Bill would work in the way the hon. Member for Kilkenny has described. But I protest against his forebodings. My hope and confidence are very strong that the predictions of the hon. Member, who on this occasion has made himself a prophet of evil, will not be realized.
§ MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, that, as a landlord in the South of Ireland, he could not but express his satisfaction that the discussions on this Bill had come to an end. He did not say he liked every provision in it; but he thought there was so much good in the Bill that every sacrifice the landlord might have to make would be small as compared with the benefits which would result from the measure. He hoped the Bill would become law in its present shape. He also trusted that the country would be warned against the mischief which words spoken that evening would effect, if they were not met by counter-statements. An hon. Gentleman (Sir John Gray) had told the House plainly that he was going to begin another agitation; he said the Bill could not content the country, and the country would not be satisfied with it. He believed that if 1626 the hon. Gentleman went about the country telling the people those things he would find men to meet him. He for one would raise his voice to prevent another agitation and to forward the views of the Government in this matter.
§ MR. BRADYsaid, he was anxious that the Bill should pass, inasmuch as it gave great satisfaction to the inhabitants of that portion of Ireland which he represented. With regard to the observation of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, he felt assured that in every word he uttered he had the welfare of the country at heart; but the hon. Member had been mistaken. He (Mr. Brady) believed that, in a short time, the measure which the Government had introduced, would confer great and lasting benefit on the people of Ireland.
§ MR. MURPHYsaid, that representing as he did, a constituency—the City of Cork—which felt a strong interest in the Bill; and having watched the measure in its progress up to the present stage, it was impossible that he could sit silently in his place and not rise to repudiate, as far as his words could repudiate, the baneful consequences which the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) had predicted with regard to the operation of this Bill. That hon. Member began by giving the measure almost unqualified praise; but when he spoke of the Amendments of the hon. Member for Cavan, he said they would have the effect of consolidating small farms, and he then described the Bill as mischievous. His (Mr. Murphy's) belief was that the measure was the most practical measure that could be brought in by any Government desiring, in all sincerity, to pass the measure which they introduced. He believed that the country would not have sanctioned perpetuity of tenure. Any Government who proposed such perpetuity would know that it would be impossible to carry it. He gave the First Minister of the Crown and the Cabinet great credit for their sagacity and their high courage in bringing forward this measure; and he tendered Ms warmest thanks to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who, by virtue of his office, was largely engaged in the preparation and carrying of the measure. Every hon. Member who communicated with the Chief Secretary was treated with courtesy, but at the same time with firmness.
§ Bill read the third time, and passed.