LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 5 May 1874)

§ MR. BUTT

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to make provision for more effectually securing the Ulster Tenant-Right, and to amend "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870," said, that he intended to revert to the old practice of making a statement as to the nature of his Bill on asking leave to introduce it. In introducing this measure, he did not intend to undervalue the Irish Land Act. That Act had established great principles, and had done much good; but, at the same time, no one would pretend to say that it could be accepted as a final and complete settlement of the Irish land question, and he believed that a very large majority of the Irish Members were more or less under engagements to their constituents 1700 to seek Amendments of the Land Act in very essential particulars. That Act had failed to give to the tenant that security of tenure without which there never could be real peace and contentment in Ireland; it had failed in staying emigration and in checking capricious evictions. By the Bill he proposed to submit to the House, he proposed to amend the provisions of the Land Act relating to the Ulster tenant-right. He also proposed—although he did so with hesitation—that something like it should be extended to the rest of Ireland. The Ulster custom, as it was termed, was a very peculiar one, and was of some interest, both historically and politically. It had existed for a long period; and under it the tenant from year to year was able before the passing of the Land Act to sell his interest in his holding often for a larger sum than his landlord could obtain for the land. Although it was not backed by the force of law, it had operated effectually as a custom in the counties of Antrim, Down, and Armagh; and he might here say, in answer to the statement so often made of small farms being the bane of Ireland, that in Armagh they numbered more than the rest of Ireland put together, and yet its population was numerous and prosperous. The county of Down was equally so, and from them both sprung the great and flourishing town of Belfast. The market value of this property of the tenants in their holdings under this custom amounted to no less than £20,000,000. The Land Act itself gave no information as to the custom; but it was left to the tribunals which were to administer that Act to find out by evidence what the custom was and to give it the force of law. It might be taken as established by the decisions of the Land Court in Ireland that under this custom the tenant had a right to sell his interest in his farm; that the landlord had a right to exercise some choice in the selection of the in-coming tenant and in the application of the purchase-money; that the landlord could never take possession of his tenant's holding without paying the market value of his tenant's interest in it; and that the landlord could not raise the rent so as to interfere with the value of his interest. What was the origin of this extraordinary custom? He believed it was to be traced back to the original 1701 colonization of Ulster in the time of James I. That was the opinion of the late respected Mr. W. Sharman Crawford, who did so much to extend to the other Provinces of Ireland the benefits of the Ulster custom, and whoso son all were happy to see in that House. Another authority on the same point was Mr. Senior, some time a Poor Law Commissioner in Ireland; and there was, he believed, no doubt on the subject. All the grants made by King James to the persons who undertook to colonize Ulster prohibited them from letting their lands at will, and no tenure was to be of less duration than for three lives of 21 years. "The undertakers" to whom King James made these grants did not fulfil the conditions imposed by the grants; but though they failed to do what the grants bound them to do—namely, to give leases to their tenants—yet they durst not disturb their tenants in the occupation of their farms. He believed the Ulster tenant-right arose from the non-fulfilment of the conditions imposed on "the undertakers" of the Ulster plantation. Sometimes the tenantry openly rebelled against attempts to deprive them of the benefits of the Ulster custom. The landlords well knew that the tenants would resort to violence if what they believed to be their rights with reference to the Ulster custom were interfered with. In 1870, Lord Donegall exacted fines on the renewal of leases beyond what the custom sanctioned, and the consequence was an insurrection. A body, called the "Hearts of Steel," assembled, and broke down fences, and when the ringleaders were placed in Belfast Gaol, 100,000 of these men presented themselves and demanded and obtained their release. Afterwards some of the rioters were indicted for high treason, but a northern jury acquitted them; and the end of all was that Lord Donegall renewed the leases at the old prices. It was chiefly by the bravery and valour of men who had been driven from Ireland in consequence of disturbances originating in landlords' wishes to evade the Ulster custom that the great British Colony in North America was wrested from the British Crown. Several witnesses who were examined before the Devon Commission said they believed that any attempt to interfere with the Ulster Custom would lead to violence. A question had arisen under the Irish 1702 Land Act as to the real value of the tenant-right which had been recognized by it. This was a matter of immense importance, owing to circumstances of recent occurrence. In 1843 a Commission was issued by Sir Robert Peel's Government directing an inquiry in regard to land and tenant-right in Ireland, and on the nature of the Ulster tenant-right being by this means brought to light, many of the landlords were impressed with the notion that an embryo copyhold was growing up against them. Strong steps were, in consequence, taken by some of them to prevent the continuance of the custom. The tenant had hitherto been at liberty to sell his interest in the farm for the highest price he could get from the man who, with the approval of the landlord, succeeded him. To this old practice some of the landlords continued to adhere, but others had begun to limit the price, sometimes to a very small figure. This infringement of the custom amounted to a simple confiscation of the rights of the tenant, and the tenantry of Ulster very naturally complained of it. To remedy the evil he desired to propose that it should be declared illegal to impose any restriction on the price or on the manner of sale, unless the restriction had been customary for a period of not less than 40 years. It seemed to him, as a lawyer, that the Land Act intended to clothe the Ulster tenant-right with an authority similar to that of the local laws existing in various parts of England, and that it did not mean a practice which had been begun, perhaps, only a year before, but a custom which had existed through many generations. There were only nine clauses relating to Ulster tenant-right in the proposed Bill. Other two clauses, however, had been inserted, one of which extended to town holdings the law relating to tenant-right. It sometimes, though not often, happened that a tenant-right did exist in practice in connection with such holdings, and it was to these that the Bill would apply. He had known large sums of money expended on the faith of the custom continuing. There was another provision to which he attached great importance. It embodied an important principle, and that was that the Ulster tenant-right might be enforced not only in tribunals under the Land Act, but whenever it 1703 happened incidentally to arise before any of the Courts of Law or Equity. He proposed that the question should be set at rest as to whether tenant-right took effect after lease. It had been decided by Chief Justice Monaghan that the lease was no bar; and in this Bill he proposed to declare that it should not be so where the custom had previously existed. Such were the provisions of the Bill relating to tenant-right in Ulster, and every one of those provisions would, he believed be found to be just, and not to go beyond the principles which had been laid down in the Land Act. He came, in the next place, to a more difficult part of the subject, and that was the application of the Ulster tenant-right to other parts of Ireland. To extend it pure and simple would obviously be nugatory, and what ought to be done therefore was to apply to the rest of Ireland the principles on which it was based. He found in a work written by the present Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, describing his travels in Italy, allusion made to the effect which was produced by the wise law of the Emperor Joseph, by which tenants were made owners in perpetuity. The learned Judge went on to say that it would not be creditable to the collective wisdom of England if no attempt were made on a comprehensive scale, for the improvement of Ireland, adding that if the custom called tenant-right was good for Ulster, its principle should be fearlessly applied to the other Provinces of that country. Now, it was difficult to make that application; but he should propose that, as the House had already sanctioned the payment of compensation to the tenant on eviction, the measure of that compensation should in every case be taken as if the tenant held his land at a fair rent, and under a protection analogous to that of the Ulster tenant. He proposed further to allow the landlord to escape from that if he permitted the tenant to sell his interest, as the Ulster tenant, at a fair rent, and to let the holding then be subject to the tenant-right the landlord would have thus created by his own voluntary act. He did not mean to say that was all which would be required, and he should wish to obtain upon it the opinion of the Irish people. There was great difficulty in legislating in the matter for the rest of Ireland, and he was by no means 1704 prepared to contend that he had succeeded in surmounting that difficulty; but he believed that, if there were not some corresponding protection to that existing in Ulster extended to Ireland generally, a very dangerous policy would be pursued. While submitting the provisions he had indicated, he proposed to make certain changes in regard to the working of the Land Act. He proposed to repeal altogether the clauses of the Act which allowed a tenant rated over £50 to "contract himself out" of its provisions, which was offering an inducement to landlords to consolidate farms, to drive out small holders, and which tended to increase emigration. He regretted very much, he might add, that on many large estates in Ireland compensation for past improvements had been taken away, and that new agreements had been sent round to tenants to be signed, by which means they were entrapped into giving up a right to receive compensation to which they were fairly entitled. That was a matter which the House would feel was entitled to consideration. Again, a tenant was allowed compensation for improvements made by himself or his predecessor; but the Courts had put upon that the construction that if, at any previous time, the tenant surrendered his holding, his claim to all the improvements was cut off. He had therefore framed a clause to prevent his right of compensation being barred in that way. The Land Act also contained a provision that the tenant might be evicted without compensation if he violated any rule of the estate. Many of the rules of an estate were arbitrary laws made by the landlord, in some cases prohibiting the tenant from marrying without the consent of the agent, prohibiting him from giving any one a night's lodging without the same consent, and, in fact, regulating the most minute affairs of the tenant's household. He might mention the case of a boy of 13 years, against whom that rule was enforced. The boy was a stranger, and he applied at the houses of several tenants to be allowed shelter for the night. Deterred by the rule, and apprehensive of the consequences which it threatened, they refused to admit the boy. A poor widow, moved by compassion, admitted him; but the tenants came to her, and said—"If you allow 1705 that boy to remain in your house to-night we will be all ejected from the estate." The woman was alarmed, the boy was obliged to leave her house, and what was the result? The poor boy was found dead next morning. He (Mr. Butt) did not like to mention names, but he mentioned facts. He proposed therefore to repeal that provision of the Land Act and also to make some other alterations in the procedure of that statute into which he need not then enter. He was sensible that his measure was not an adequate dealing with the land system of Ireland; but there was no time to be lost in grappling with that question, because emigration was now fast draining away the best portion of the population of that country. They must not mistake the temporary palliative of the Land Act for the permanent redress of the grievances existing under the land system. They should give security of tenure to tenants in Ireland, such as was enjoyed by tenants in other countries. There was now no security of tenure for a tenant that he would not be evicted. Only give the tenant security and the land in Ireland would be rendered by their skill, energy, and industry infinitely more productive than it was under the existing system. The Governors of our Colonies bore testimony to the unwearying and successful industry of the Irish cultivator when he enjoyed security of tenure. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.