HC Deb 11 June 1875 vol 224 cc1716-40
MR. BUTT

, in rising to move— That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will he graciously pleased to issue Her Royal Commission to such persons as Her Majesty may see fit to appoint, directing them to inquire into and report upon the operation and effect of the Act passed in 1870 to amend the Law relating to the occupation and ownership of land in Ireland, and more especially to ascertain, if necessary by local inquiries, whether and how far the provisions of that Act intended for such purpose have been effectual in giving increased security of tenure to the Irish tenants, and whether any and what obstacles have existed or do exist to prevent the operation of those provision: and also to make like special inquiries and report as to the provisions of that Act introduced to facilitate the acquisition by the tenant of the absolute interest in his farm; and generally to inquire and report as to all matters connected with the tenure of land in Ireland which Her Majesty may see fit in Her wisdom to refer to them, said, that some such inquiry as he proposed was a necessary consequence of the passing of the Act of 1870. He felt certain he could satisfy the House, that having regard to the objects of that Act, and to the state of things it was intended to meet, it was the duty of Parliament to inquire at this period how far the measure in question had effected the objects it was intended to achieve. The Land Act of 1870 was not a compromise between rival interests or conflicting rights: it was passed simply with the intention of remedying a state of things that was very disastrous to Ireland. The tenant-farmer had long laboured under exceptional grievances. He was liable to be evicted without any reason being assigned whenever the landlord chose to exercise the power of driving him from the soil. He had no protection for the results of his own improvements, but it lay within the power of the landlord at any time to appropriate to his own use all the improvements which the tenant might have effected upon the property. They had it upon a very high authority that in one year—1849—no less than 50,000 evictions took place in Ireland, and matters ultimately assumed such an aspect that Parliament felt such a state of things ought not to be allowed to continue. Ireland had for more than a century been kept in a state of chronic discontent by the unjustness of the law, and it was not until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich took up the question that the remedy was provided. That remedy declared in effect that the tenant should not be subject to arbitrary eviction, and that he should receive protection and compensation for his improvements. The principle of giving compensation, however, for improvements did not originate with the late Government. It was first proposed by Mr. Napier, the Attorney General for Ireland in the Government of Lord Derby in 1852, but, unfortunately, Party combinations at that time prevented it from coming into operation. The proposal received the approval of the House, and the sanction of two subsequent Cabinets, but until the year 1870 no attempt was made to give it the sanction of law. Had the protection of which the Act of that year gave to the tenant been given earlier much dissatisfaction, misery, and even ruin might have been spared to Ireland. The first point of detail upon which he would touch in immediate connection with his Motion was that of the compensation to be paid to tenants for improvements made upon their holdings. He took that question first, because he thought its settlement was vital to the peace of Ireland. The Land Act of 1870 vested in the tenants the property in their improvements, but this provision of the Act had been defeated in many parts of the country by the course which the landlords had chosen to take. On many estates agreements had been sent round to the tenants by the landlords, with instructions to the bailiff who delivered them to compel the tenants to sign them before the next morning on pain of ejectment; and the tenants, in most cases, felt themselves compelled to sign their right to compensation away, and to bind themselves from that moment not to expect compensation for improvements in their land. Surely that was a ground for inquiry by a Royal Commission. With regard to the landlords who had so acted, he would not mention names, for he had no wish in speaking on this question to create Party feeling. The tenant-farmers, in the paper sent round, were told that their rights for past improvements must be given up; and that had been done all over Ireland. Thus one of the beneficent effects of the Act of 1870 had been neutralized by agreements which it would be difficult to reconcile with honour and justice, and many of which would probably be upset if tested in a Court of Equity. The landlords who had taken the course to which he objected knew that then-tenants were in their power, and that there was not much probability of legal means being taken to defeat their illegal and unjust intentions. The result was that in many cases the tenant-right had been surrendered, and that the present position of a large proportion of the Irish tenantry was altogether different from what was intended by the framers of the Act which was passed five years ago. Had the Act been allowed to work they would in five years have a tenantry in Ireland with an estate in the land; but the intentions of that just Act were defeated. The defeat of the objects of the Act had an injurious bearing also upon tenant-right in the North of Ireland. He did not mean to say that the Ulster tenants were coerced, but in many instances the tenant-right had been given up where it had been in force many generations. Another defect in the Act of 1870 which called for inquiry was, that which, while in general terms it prohibited tenants from contracting themselves out of the right to compensation, it limited the prohibition to farms of a certain annual value. The effect of that had been to induce landlords by means of evictions to consolidate their farms, in order to obtain tenants who would have the power and at the same time the willingness to contract themselves out of their rights. Another effect of the Act had been practically to fix a tariff for evictions by providing that where no compensation was to be paid, evicted tenants should be entitled to damages. These damages were limited by the size of the farms and depended also very much upon the chairmen of counties who had to assess the amounts. Landlords were therefore in the position of being able to conclude that they were clothed with the moral sanction of the Legislature when exercising the power of eviction, and that their consciences were fully discharged when they had paid small damages to evicted tenants. In considering this question it was impossible to forget that it was an historical fact that the land of Ireland had been twice or thrice confiscated, and the lands of the old people—the real owners of it—had been handed from them to adventurers from England. Lord Clare, at the time of the Act of Union, he being then Lord Chancellor of Ireland, declared that the lands of Ireland had been confiscated, and he gave a total of 11,697,000 acres. Lord Clare further said, speaking of the manner in which Ireland had been treated under the Governments of successive Kings, that that which was really war against Cromwell was treated, by an English fiction, on the restoration of Parliament, as "rebellion;" and he again said that the whole of the land of Ireland had been confiscated and given by the Kings, in three successive confiscations, to adventurers; and Lord Clare further declared at the time of the Union that the rebellions in Ireland had been provoked by the want of sympathy between the new comers and the old people. But what had been doing since? While English statesmen had taken every means to suppress revolt they had never thought of seeking to redress the wrongs that provoked it. In 1822 a formidable insurrection, which originated in the discontent caused by oppressive conduct on the part of a landlord's agent, broke out in Munster, but no effort was made by the Legislature to effect a permanent and satisfactory settlement of the landlord and tenant question. Almost all the revolts that had since taken place in Ireland were against the landlords' power. Evictions in Ireland made the tenants feel insecure, and hence disturbances. If one tenant was oppressed, the instinct of self-preservation caused others to sympathize with him; each one thinking that it might be his own turn next acted accordingly. That was the state of things in Ireland at all events down to the time when the House had under their consideration the Land Act. The evictions of tenants in Ireland from 1840 to 1860 caused far greater desolation than the wars of Cromwell. Such little consideration had the landlords of Ireland for their tenants, not long ago in Donegal a landlord who thought proper to quarrel with his tenants evicted 300 simple peasants from their native mountains because they were unable to pay exorbitant rents. The military were called out to enforce this cruel edict. He (Mr. Butt), as an Irishman, asked if the Emperor of Russia was asked to act in this cruel manner to his serfs, whether he would not, in preference, send the landlord to Siberia? On another estate of 500 acres, where the rent was punctually paid, a murder was committed; and, although previously the neighbourhood was never disturbed by a crime or murder, 13 families were turned out and their cabins torn down, because they could not tell who the murderer was. Could it be expected that a country should be tranquil in which such things occurred? In the reign of Henry VIII. a statute was passed which enacted that if a landlord pulled down the dwellings of any of his tenants, he must rebuild them and recall the people whom he had driven away from his property, and that if he did not comply with the terms of that Act his lands should be forfeited to the Crown. Again, in the reign of Elizabeth, a statute was passed which in effect declared that a man had a right to live on the land on which he was born; because under that statute, if a landlord evicted tenants and thus deprived them of the means of livelihood, rates to support them were imposed upon him. Unfortunately, however, those statutes did not apply to Ireland. No doubt, the Irish Land Act had done a great deal of individual good. It was the first step ever taken by England for the protection of the Irish tenant. It established principles of great value, and credit was due to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich for the courage and genius with which he overcame all the difficulties in his way in passing that Act. The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, would have done more than he did in the interest of the Irish tenant, if his measure had been cordially accepted by the Irish landlords. Thus far the Irish Land Act had given peace to Ireland. For years evictions had been given up; and agrarian crime had almost entirely passed away. But how long would that state of things continue? The landlords had begun once more to evict. Within the last year evictions had assumed almost their normal form in Ireland. If the House would agree to his Motion for inquiry, he would be able to show that those who had disturbed the public peace in Ireland were not those who had been consigned to gaol, or who had fled from the officers of justice, but some who occupied lordly mansions, and had caused irritation among their tenantry by their rapacity or oppression. Some sanguine persons might say the Land Act had done all they required; but if this were the case, what objection could they have to the inquiry he was asking for? Others, taking a more rational view, admitted that the Act had done a great deal of good, and that if we could really carry out the object contemplated by its framers, we might have a prosperous and contented peasantry in Ireland. Was it not the part of a statesman to look forward to the future? The present time was perfectly tranquil; an united Conservative Government was in power; and the effect of the disposition shown by a Conservative Government to shelter and protect the peasantry would be more beneficial to the country than it would be if manifested by the Liberals. Why did the Government shrink from an inquiry? He besought them, above all things, not to leave in the minds of the Irish people the conviction that they were shrinking in consequence of any reactionary motive, and that they did not intend to carry out the principles of the Land Act fairly. Whatever the Conservatives might have thought of the measure originally, to go back upon it now would be fatal to the peace of Ireland. If the Government refused to grant the inquiry he asked for, there would assuredly be an inquiry by the public Press and by Tenants' Defence Associations. Exaggerated accounts of what had been done would then go forth to the country, and it would be far better to substitute a calm investigation by a Royal Commission for passionate appeals to the people. There could never be permanent peace in Ireland until protection was given to the tenant against the absolute power of his landlord, for so long as the tenant was a serf he would be also a rebel. His inquiry would include a consideration of those clauses which enabled the tenants to purchase their farms. There was a liability in some quarters to over-rate the disposition of the Irish people to become absolute proprietors of the land. In the North of Ireland, no doubt, such a disposition existed; but in the South the people would probably be content with absolute security of tenure at a moderate rent. At the time of the Union, he might remark, there were in the South a considerable number of small properties held in fee simple, by farmers; but, in almost every instance, these possessions had since been bought up by the great proprietors. This, however, did not detract from the value of the clause he had just referred to. Nothing, he believed, would be better for Ireland than the establishment of a peasant proprietary, and he would prefer that they should hold their land without rent. We ought to teach the tenants to have that spirit of independence which would make them desire to become the absolute owners of their farms. One part of his inquiry, therefore, would be as to the causes which had hitherto prevented these clauses from producing any result. It was chiefly owing, he thought, to the harsh and absurd regulations laid down by the Government offices. The dominion of the landlord could not be maintained in Ireland, and the day would come when it would be admitted that the best friend of the landlords and the most Conservative politician, was he who had asked Parliament to join with him in devising means to reconcile proprietary rights with the right of the Irish people to live and be fed upon their own land. It was with that conviction he now begged to submit the Motion of which he had given Notice to the consideration of the House.

MR. KIRK

, in seconding the Motion, said, he felt it incumbent on him to say a few words on the subject, because he represented the farmers of his native country and had also had considerable personal experience of the injurious working of the Land Laws of Ireland. What Sir George Cornewall Lewis said about Ireland many years ago was as true now as then; and though some little improvement had taken place, the general condition of the people was as hopeless and as miserable. That was a state of things which every lover of security and good order and prosperity in Ireland must deplore, which everyone, in fact, who loved Ireland would desire to see removed. For, at present, the very life-blood was being squeezed out of the people, who still were living, as Swift once described it, "a life more wretched than the beggars of England." The main root of our Irish grievances was the iniquitous state of the Land Laws. They had many other things to complain of, but no evil they suffered from had attained to such colossal proportions, and the great bane of Irish prosperity had ever been insecurity of tenure and capricious evictions. The Land Act of the late Premier had failed to give that security of tenure which was necessary for the welfare of the Irish people, and would never be looked upon as a final settlement of the question. They would never be satisfied until the ancient Ulster custom had been recognized all over the land. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), in introducing his Land Bill last Session, made a great effort to remedy that state of things; but under the present state of the law, very few landlords would allow a small holding to a small tenant if he could consolidate his farm, thereby getting rid of compensation altogether if he could re-let his land—an operation in which there were always plenty of land cormorants to help him. Having lived among the Irish people, he could say that discontent and its concomitant, disaffection, would always reign among them so long as they did not enjoy security of tenure. It was and had long been the policy of England to preserve the rights of property and avoid confiscation. Yet it had not always been so, as they might see from what had taken place in Ireland when an invasion was feared. In the year 1540, when the Isle of Wight was much exposed to invasion from Prance, as lying nearest to that country, and being much depopulated by reason of the land of the Island having fallen for the most part into the hands of large landholders, an Act of Parliament was passed which abolished large grazing farms and limited farm-holdings. The change was immense. The population of the Island soon doubled, and when, a few years later, in 1546, a French army of 50,000 or 60,000 men landed on the island, the Isle of Wight Militia sufficed to drive them out, as every man felt he was fighting for his hearth and his home. Substitute for the Isle of Wight, Ireland, and for Prance, America, and the parallel was complete. What interest had the Irish people in the soil? The sword of Damocles was hanging over their heads. The tenantry were asking for security of tenure, rather than for compensation. Ought laws to be tolerated which enabled landlords to depopulate half a county in order to make it a deer forest, or to decimate the inhabitants of a district under the pretence of getting rid of the surplus population; or to level 270 houses, leaving the inmates, young and old, healthy and sick, exposed to the cold on a stormy night; or which made it a rule of the estate that the agent should select the males and females who were to marry as though they were mere cattle? As a tenant-farmer he said there were many good landlords in Ireland who wished to see their tenants happy, prosperous, contented, and even independent; but, on the other hand, there were bad landlords who if they saw their tenants prosperous would raise their rents, and take away from them the fruits of their industry. The present state of things could not continue to exist without producing serious political danger, for it might be the means of raising against England in the Far West a most bitter and resolute enemy. Russia had emancipated her serfs, and France, by going through a series of bloody revolutions, had shaken off the trammels in which feudalism had bound her. England alone remained callous to this progress; but he hoped she would take warning in time, and enter upon a policy more just and more generous. If something were not soon done for Ireland the people would once more become hopeless, discontented, and disaffected; and if England should find herself embroiled in hostilities with a foreign country, she would no longer be able to draw upon the Irish population to afford her soldiers and sailors to fight her battles, and the danger was that they might be found fighting in the ranks of her opponents.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to issue Her Royal Commission to such persons as Her Majesty may see fit to appoint, directing them to inquire into and report upon the operation and effect of the Act passed in 1870 to amend the Law relating to the occupation and ownership of land in Ireland, and more especially to ascertain, if necessary by local inquiries, whether and how far the provisions of that Act intended for such purpose have been effectual in giving increased security of tenure to the Irish tenants, and whether any and what obstacles have existed or do exist to prevent the operation of those provisions; and also to make like special inquiries and report as to the provisions of that Act introduced to facilitate the acquisition by the tenant of the absolute interest in his farm; and generally to inquire and report as to all matters connected with the tenure of land in Ireland which Her Majesty may see fit in Her wisdom to refer to them,"—(Mr. Butt,)

—instead thereof.

MR. BRUEN

said, that on his own be-half, and on that of the landlords of Ireland, he did not shrink from any inquiry; and if the Government thought fit to issue such a Commission as the hon. and learned Member for Limerick recommended, the Irish landlords, at all events, would have no cause to regret the investigation. There was no man more capable of painting a picture than the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, who knew how to combine the very smallest elements of fact, and to throw over them such a poetic haze and such an imaginative colouring as would produce out of little or nothing a most extraordinary effect. After listening to the fervid declamation against the Irish landlords which the House had heard that evening, he could not help asking himself whether it was really possible that he could belong to a class of men who would appear to be the very worst persons on the face of the earth. He hoped the House would not allow itself to be carried away by the description that had been given of the landlords of Ireland. The hon. and learned Member had mention one case in which a number of people were evicted from a town-land in Donegal. That case had been previously brought before the House, when an attack was made on Mr. Adair; but those who made that attack did not go to a division, and a defence was offered which could not be contradicted. The steward of Mr. Adair had been brutally murdered; his wife and children, he believed, had been denied the very common necessaries of life after the murder; a second employé of Mr. Adair's was also murdered; and when it was well known that everyone on that town-land was well aware who the murderer was, Mr. Adair said if they did not disclose him, he would take the remedy into his own hands and say the people should not remain there. For himself he did not assert that Mr. Adair was altogether right in taking the law into his own hands, but these people were not so hardly treated under these circumstances. The hon. and learned Member had said that in 1849 there were 50,000 evictions in Ireland, but forgot to tell the House how many were for non-payment of rent, and that at that time the Famine had swept over the land and left the farmers absolutely unable to pay their rent. In many cases these unfortunate persons if left on the land had nothing to support them, and in several the Landlords paid their passage to America, And yet this was held up as cruelty on the part of the Irish landlords. "When the Land Act was passed in 1870 if a case could have been made against the Irish landlords it would have been made; but in the three years ending the 31st of December, 1869, the total number of evictions was 1,560, and in 275 cases the persons were re-admitted; so that there was an average of only 428 evictions for each of those three years out of a total of 682,237 agricultural holdings. If corresponding Returns for England could be had, Ireland would show very favourably by comparison. On the part of the Irish landlords he denied that they evicted in the wholesale way which was asserted, though it was necessary that they should have the power to evict, in order that they might secure the payment of their rent. Indeed, the fact of so many holdings being let under the full rent was inconsistent with these wholesale evictions. We were told that what was wanted was fixity of tenure, valuation of rents, and the right on the part of the tenant to sell the good-will of his holding. But if there were to be that valuation, the result would be that in a large portion of Ireland rents would be raised, and if fixity of tenure were established it would relieve the landlords from all responsibility for making improvements. If such laws were enacted the landlords would pecuniarily be gainers. How could it be said that there was a desire on the part of the landlords to evict when they allowed tenants to remain on the land at a lower rent than they could get in the open market? But from the speeches the House had heard it would appear as if the landlords were the only persons in Ireland who were not to have security of tenure. Almost all the recent cases of eviction had come, not from the hands of the landlords, but from the hands of land-jobbers. If, however, the Government should see fit to grant the Commission asked for he, for one, should not object to it.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, that notwithstanding all they had been told about the amiability of Irish landlords, rack-renting was being carried out worse than ever it had been before the passing of the Irish Land Act, the result of which was that evictions were as prevalent in Ireland as ever. He knew in his own neighbourhood a wealthy landlord who got £4 10s, an acre for land which no agriculturist could make more than £6 an acre of, so that the landlord got 75 per cent of the income, and the cultivator only 25 per cent. He knew a case in Limerick where the tenant, who was an improving tenant, had paid £14 a-year for 4£ acres and a small house; but after the death of the landlord the rent had been repeatedly raised, so that in a comparatively short time it was £30 a-year. In 1873 the tenant said that if the landlord would pay for improvements he would give up the land; but the landlord, under the Land Act, got the tenant to contract himself out of the law, and in 1874 he ejected him without a shilling of compensation. Soon afterwards the tenant died and the landlord was morally guilty of his death. There Were no doubt plenty of good landlords in Ireland; but protection was wanted against the bad landlords, who rack-rented and who behaved in a heartless and cruel manner, for he maintained that the Land Act was totally incapable of supplying that protection.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, he thought that it was the bounden duty of the Government to assent to this Commission. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich said in 1870 that he wished to pass his Bill to prevent capricious evictions; but, had it had that effect? He (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) was sorry to say that it had had a contrary effect, for, before it was passed, it was shorn of some of its best clauses. He had a Return of the evictions upon notices to quit, for the three years immediately preceding and those following the passing of the Land Bill; and he thought that when the House became aware of the figures contained therein, they would be surprised at the fact. In the county of Antrim, for the three years ending 1870, there were 121 decrees in ejectment upon notice to quit. In 1871–2–3—the three years since the passing of the Act—there were 172 decrees of ejectment, being an increase of 51 over those obtained previously to the passing of the Bill. In the county of Cork there were in the three years preceding the passing of the Land Act, 160 ejectments; in the three years since, 195. In the county of Tyrone there were in the three years before the Act, 187 evictions; in the three years after, 205. In Tipperary, the number of evictions before and after the passing of the Act was respectively 91 and 108, showing an excess of 17 since the passing of the Act. In Carlow, the number of evictions was respectively 15 and 22, showing an excess of 7 evictions since the Act. The cause of that was very evident. Landlords now felt that tenants had certain protection by law, and, in effect, said—" You cannot complain of my turning you out, you can appeal to the Land Act for the protection afforded you by the law." Persons also went to landlords offering larger rents, and also offering to pay the compensation of the old tenants; and, in this way, landlords were induced to evict. Again, a decision of the Judges had limited the operation of the Land Act. If a tenant had notice to quit on the 1st May, and remained in possession until the 2nd May, it was held that he was then a trespasser, and could be evicted without having any claim for compensation. If the Government, seeing that the Act of 1870 had signally failed, would only act fairly in the matter and grant this Commission, and see upon their Report whether they could not to a certain extent satisfy the wants and feelings of the people of Ireland, without trenching on the rights of the landlords, they would do an act which would long be remembered by the people of Ireland with gratitude. The very fact that the Returns from which he had quoted showed that evictions had largely increased since the passing of the Land Bill would, surely, be sufficient to prevent the Government refusing an inquiry into the subject. If the Land Act of 1870 had caused so much benefit to Ulster, why not apply it to all the other Provinces, and not leave the tenant any longer on the mercy of the landlord and the capricious judgment of the Judges. When a question was raised that the Act of 1870 disturbed the tenant-right in Ulster, a Bill was brought in by the present Lord Chancellor to secure it, and knowing, as he (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) did, that the Act was a failure in the South of Ireland, he made an application to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich—then Prime Minister—for redress, but was unsuccessful. Under all the circumstances, he believed a Commission was necessary, and should therefore support the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, it was a somewhat remarkable circumstance that, considering the short space of time that had elapsed since the passing of the Church and Land Acts, which had been quoted by so many hon. Gentlemen opposite on different occasions as the source and secret of the present prosperity of Ireland, that Motions should already be made for Royal Commissions to inquire into their working, and that those Motions should be supported by Gentlemen who were supposed to represent the popular party in Ireland. But when he heard the very poor and insufficient reasons which had been alleged for the adoption of that course, he confessed it was not surprising, under the circumstances, that right hon. Gentlemen on the front bench opposite should, by what might be called a capricious clearance, have left the defence of their acts to those who were not responsible for them. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick stated that it was not his intention to go into the past history of the land question, but he put it to the House whether that promise had been fulfilled. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) regretted it had not, for in the course of the debate they had heard the usual denunciations of an alien proprietary, just as if the lapse of no number of centuries could possibly make a landlord an Irishman like his tenant. They had been told that "tenants in Ireland were more wretched than beggars in England," and that the Land Laws were the main root of Irish grievances. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt), notwithstanding the eloquence with which he was endowed, had descended to those exaggerations, when he said that the Irish tenant, so long as he was a serf, would be a rebel, just as if the tenants of Ireland were serfs now. He had spoken of English authority being upheld in Ireland by English bayonets, just as if there were no Irishmen in the Royal Constabulary; and had told them that there could be no peace in Ireland until the tenant was protected against the arbitrary power of the landlord, just as if the Land Act of 1870 had never been passed. Now, all these assertions must be felt by the House to be gross exaggerations; and if he might express an opinion upon sentiments of the kind, he would say that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Colleagues, who had influence with the ignorant masses in Ireland, would do a greater service to their country by confining themselves to existing circumstances and by abstaining from such exciting and unfounded language, and from the discussion of grievances which had long passed away. But by whom, first of all, was the hon. and learned Gentleman supported? He observed a somewhat thin attendance—considering the importance of the subject—of those hon. Members whose support the hon. and learned Gentleman generally received. He was aware that some of them, so far from expressing an opinion in favour of further inquiry by a Royal Commission, had openly stated at public meetings that the Act was insufficient to save honest working men from capricious eviction, and that they would be satisfied with nothing but fixity of tenure and rents fixed by a periodical valuation. ["Hear, hear!"] For the information of those hon. Members who cheered, he might say that he was quoting from a speech delivered by the Colleague of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick in October last. More than that, he found that the Committee of the Tenant-Eight Association in Ireland, who, so far as he knew, were the only persons really desiring again to bring this question forward, entirely repudiated the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. ["No, no!"] Why, he found from a statement recently published by the body to which he referred, that they objected to the Commission altogether, and stated that in their opinion nothing short of perpetuity of tenure at fair rents, together with free right of sale, would satisfy the requirements of the country. These were the demands of the only party in Ireland who were at the back of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. ["No, no!"] If that statement was incorrect, he should like the hon. and learned Member himself to say by what other party outside the House he was supported. He had heard objections to certain provisions of the Land Act raised by Irish landlords, but they were far from looking at the measure with the eyes of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He altogether failed to see that anything had been said by hon. Members opposite which would justify the appointment of a Royal Commission. They had started upon an entirely wrong assumption. So far as he was aware, it was neither the intention of the Government which introduced, nor of the Legislature which passed the Land Act that it should altogether prevent landlords from evicting tenants. It was simply intended to deter landlords from capricious evictions; and he had listened in vain for proof that in this respect the Act had failed of its purpose. Those who approved the demand of the Tenant-Right Association which he had quoted could not have been satisfied with the Land Act as it passed, and therefore could not be among those who wished for a Royal Commission to inquire whether the Act had failed to effect a result which they had never expected from it. Their object, put simply, was to transfer the property of the landlords to the tenants without the latter being called upon to pay for it, and it clearly could not be said that the Land Act was passed with any such intention. The real objects of the Act were to guard tenants against capricious eviction, and to compensate them for unexhausted improvements and disturbance in their holdings, the last being a compensation which, so far as he knew, had never been seriously demanded by tenants in either England or Scotland. The provision with regard to disturbance was, that no landlord could disturb his tenant on a holding valued at less than £10 a-year without paying him a sum amounting to seven years' rental, or not exceeding £250. From a Return made in 1866, he learnt that more than half the tenantry in Ireland occupied holdings below the limit of £10, and therefore he ventured to say that the amount of the fine against capricious evictions which Parliament had imposed upon the landlord was sufficient absolutely to prevent the practice. He doubted, however, whether hon. Gentlemen opposite would be content with any money fine at all. Would they not rather say that those whom they represented would never be satisfied until they were permanently fixed in the occupation of the land? This was a proposal which had never yet been brought before the House, and if the hon. and learned Member would embody it in a Bill, the House would find itself in the dilemma raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich when discussing the Land Bill in 1870—namely, that, after all, the property of a landlord, even in Ireland, was property, and that if the reversion of the property was to be transferred from the landlords to the tenants, the landlords must be compensated, either by a payment from the Consolidated Fund, which Parliament would not vote, or by an increased payment of rent by the tenants, to which they would, not unnaturally, object. The hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) said, that the number of capricious evictions had increased since the passing of the Land Act, and in order to prove his case he quoted some fragmentary figures from a Return which had not yet been printed. There was no doubt that evictions had increased, to some extent, for a Return issued annually by the Constabulary—which should be presented to the House if any hon. Member would move for it—showed that for the three years preceding the passing of the Land Act the average number of evictions was 428, and that in 1874 the number had risen to 526; but there was no proof that the evictions were capricious. No doubt, in consequence of the altered relations between landlord and tenant since the passing of the Land Act, cases had occurred where landlords had demanded new agreements and arrangements, and where the tenants refused evictions did take place. But that condition of things was not permanent. Was it likely, he asked, that the landlords would evict capriciously in view of the fine which the Land Act imposed? It had been frequently said that since the passing of the Act the landlords had evaded the compensation clause by imposing exorbitant rents and getting rid of tenants who were unable, or refused, to pay them; but in a very able book since published, the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, commenting upon the Act, expressed his opinion that landlords were liable for compensation, if they imposed exorbitant rents merely for the purpose of enforcing unreasonable terms upon their tenants, and that the tenants were only disentitled to compensation in case their refusal to pay the increased rent was based upon unreasonable grounds. As to the evictions which had occurred since the passing of the Land Act, he thought the Return from which the hon. Member for Cork County had quoted would show of what kind they were. Those evictions, he believed, were mainly on account of arrears of rent, the rent in some cases being eight or nine years in arrear. Fixity of tenure was held up as a remedy for all that was wrong in the agricultural condition of Ireland; but fixity of tenure in Ireland would, he believed, amount simply to this—it would give a good tenant no greater security than he at present enjoyed; but as to a farm in the occupation of a bad and insolvent farmer, it would enable him to dispose of it at a ruinous price to a successor even worse and more insolvent than himself. The hon. Member for the County of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan), with all the pathos of which his speeches were so full, told the House a moving story of a tenant who had his rent raised from time to time, and who was at last turned out from his holding and thrown upon the streets by the unreasonable conduct of his landlord. Having listened to that story, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was bound to say the hon. Member must have told it under a mistake. In the first place, he understood the hon. Member to say that the rent at the highest point was £80 a-year, and that the tenant had been compelled by the landlord to sign an agreement which deprived him of a right to compensation. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) could only say that he was quite sure the tenant had not the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick when he signed that agreement, because if the hon. and learned Member for Limerick looked at the compensation clauses of the Land Act, he would find that Act made compensation compulsory, in spite of any agreement, in the case of all holdings under £50 a-year. And if the figures were wrong, and the tenant in question had a holding worth more than £50 a-year, his position must have been such that he ought to have been able to take care of himself. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick had told the House that since the passing of the Land Act tenants had been divested of their right to compensation by being compelled to sign agreements depriving them of it. He must refer that hon. and learned Member to the provision of the Land Act which prevented any such agreement, except where the tenancy was above £50. [Mr. BUTT said, there was no such provision in the Land Act. Past improvements might be made the subject of agreement.] He would not dispute on a point of law with the hon. and learned Member, because he was quite sure he should get the worst of it; but if a tenant chose to sell his right to past improvements, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) saw no reason why he should not be allowed to do so. The hon. and learned Member admitted what the experience of the last five years seemed to prove to be the fact—that the Irish people generally were not so anxious to become absolute owners of land as some persons affirmed. If the desire existed anywhere he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) thought it existed in the North of Ireland, and it was somewhat strange that even there the tenantry infinitely preferred to pay a price for the tenant-right—he believed sometimes as much as £40 an acre—rather than purchase the fee-simple of their farms. He understood the hon. and learned Member to say that the hindrance to the free operation of what were generally known as the "Bright's clauses" of the Land Act was, that the Government had insisted on over-stringent conditions before they could be put into operation. Well, the conditions, as far as regarded the advance of money by the Government for the purpose of enabling tenants to purchase lands, were laid down in the Act itself. Money could not be lent for that purpose except to an amount not exceeding two-thirds of the price of a holding, which must be recouped in 35 years with interest at £5 percent. Now, he was bound to say he did not think it could be fairly alleged that those terms were improperly onerous to the tenant, or more than the Government ought to demand in order to protect the taxpayers of the country at large. He believed the hindrance to the operation of these clauses was not that the terms were too high, but that, as the hon. and learned Member himself stated, the tenantry preferred to buy the right of occupation of their farms to buying the freehold of them. But what did that prove? Surely it proved that the security of occupation was not quite so bad as the hon. and learned Member would make it out to be; that that security not only in Ulster, but in other parts of Ireland, was sufficient to induce people to spend large sums in the purchase of existing tenant-right. Therefore, he thought the second part of the argument of the hon. and learned Member was almost an answer to the first part of the Motion which he had brought before the House. It had been stated by the hon. Member for Cork County—and he believed it was alleged the other day by his noble Friend the late Chief Secretary for Ireland—that action had been already sanctioned by the party now in office with the view of amending the Land Act. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had before him the Act to which the hon. Member for Cork County referred. It was an Act, of a single clause, to interpret a purely legal point in the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870. It was carried in 1871, and he would venture to say it had nothing whatever to do with the main principles on which the Land Act was carried. He found that on a Motion being made in "another place" for a Commission to inquire into the working of the Land Act, purely from a legal point of view, with regard to varying decisions upon points which had been submitted to different Chairmen in Ulster, and the advisability of a uniform interpretation of the law, the present Lord Chancellor said he should be sorry to see any step taken by the Legislature for the purpose of altering the provisions of the Land Act; and he spoke merely in favour of altering the tribunal so as to secure uniformity of decision. A nobleman, whose name in matters connected with Ireland would always command respect in that House and in the country, the late Lord Clanricarde, said he should support the Motion, but should certainly not vote for the appointment of a Select Committee upon the general question, which would have the effect of overthrowing the Act; he also said it would be most unwise to repeal it or in any material degree to set aside its principle, but that was no reason why they should not make it more agreeable in the working. Yet the House was now asked practically by the Motion of the hon. and learned Member to re-open the whole question of land tenure in matters which had been settled only five years ago, by an Act framed with all the responsibility of the late Government and discussed most fully in both Houses of Parliament. He thought that if any course more than another was calculated to disturb the present happy state of Ireland it would be that of reopening this land question. Nothing could be more mischievous than a quinquennial revision of the relations between landlords and tenants—a fresh stirring of all the feelings of bitterness with which many of the landlords of Ireland unquestionably viewed the deprivation of rights which they bad hitherto possessed—a renewed encouragement to the unquestionable desire of many to possess the property of others without paying for it. Was this the time, when Ireland was gradually, but all the same rapidly, rising to a state of prosperity she had not hitherto enjoyed, again to raise all the disputed questions connected with that occupation which was her main support—agriculture? He would venture to say that the Royal Commission moved for by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick would be mischievous in the extreme, because it would excite hopes which could not possibly be gratified. Hon. Members had heard and read what were the real desires of those agitators who professed to represent the tenantry of Ireland. Unless a Royal Commission reported in favour of the demands they made, they would never be content with its appointment and would immediately repudiate its decision. This question of land in Ireland had been inquired into as fully and as carefully as any question which was ever brought before Parliament. It had been settled—he did not say finally, for he claimed finality for no Act of Parliament, but for many years to come, by the passing of the Irish Land Act of 1870, and he did entreat the House not again to rouse an agitation which had been allayed, by acceding to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member—a Motion moderate enough in its terms, but veiling all kinds of dangerous suggestions for a revolution in the tenure of land in Ireland. That country had, even yet, hardly recovered from the agitation which had accompanied the passing of the Land Act sufficiently to tempt persons to invest their capital in the purchase or improvement of land; and it was a curious fact that anyone who inquired into the increase of wealth in Ireland during the last five years would find that it was mainly due to commercial investments and deposits in banks, and that the increase in the value of stock in Ireland was as nothing compared to the increase of those investments. That pointed still to a sense of general insecurity, and he hoped the House would not add to that evil by re-opening the question, but would treat the present Motion as they treated the Bill of the hon. Member for the County Down (Mr. Sharman Crawford) the other day, by giving it a most emphatic and decided negative.

MR. O'REILLY

said, he was one of these who was prepared to support the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick. Anyone who had only listened to the glowing phrases of the right hon. Baronet must conclude that the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick was intended to overturn and uproot the Land Act of 1870, to re-open the whole question of land tenure in Ireland, and to introduce something vaguely, darkly, dimly Socialistic. But there was nothing of the kind in the Motion, and he thought he could convince the House that the demand for an inquiry was a reasonable one. The Act of 1870 was a great, a noble, and a beneficial experiment, well intended and, in the main, well devised for attaining its objects. Admittedly, however, it was an experiment, and was it contrary to precedent to ask that after five years' experience of such a law, ah inquiry should be instituted in order to ascertain how far the measure had succeeded, to show the large amount of good it had done, to find out also where its provisions were unintentionally deficient, and to suggest a remedy for any flaws which might be detected? He supported this demand for inquiry, because he believed misapprehensions respecting the Act of 1870 were very prevalent. Indeed, his belief was, that, notwithstanding his speech, the right hon. Baronet himself was far from being clear of misapprehension on the subject. Its first object was to legalize the Ulster tenant-right and similar customs existing in other parts of Ireland; but, in some instances, it had failed to do this. There had been conflicting decisions on various difficult points, and good ground existed for inquiring how far the Land Act was effectual in carrying out its first object. The second object of the Act was to afford compensation for improvements, and, substantially, this object had been effected; but, in certain instances, the question was raised whether the Act could not be evaded and nullified in this particular. A third object of the Act was to deter Irish landlords from capricious evictions by giving tenants compensation for disturbance of holdings. He believed that in an immense number of cases the compensation for disturbances wisely and boldly given by Chairmen of Quarter Sessions in Ireland had deterred landlords from capricious evictions. But in many parts of Ireland the tenantry thought these provisions had failed. Did not this afford fair ground for a local inquiry, in order to show the tenants that their belief was unfounded, if it really was unfounded? Again, the provisions in the Act for the acquisition by tenants of the absolute interest in their farms had not worked to any large extent. From his own observation, he knew that tenants were not particularly anxious to purchase the fee simple; but it was worth while to inquire how it was that so few persons had availed themselves of these provisions in the Act. The inquiry suggested by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt) had been treated as though it were some mysterious and also some radical inquiry into the whole land system of Ireland, and as though it would unsettle the minds of all the tenantry. On the contrary, it was a rational and reasonable inquiry and one which, so far from unsettling the minds of men, would tend much to settle and calm them by con-firming what was good, and showing the way to improve what was bad. He sincerely hoped, therefore, that if not now, at some distant time, such an inquiry would be granted.

MR. MELDON

said, that since the passing of the Act of 1870, landlords, who before the passing of that measure would never have thought of disturbing their tenants, had considered that they had a moral right to evict on payment of a pecuniary fine. One of the greatest grievances in Ireland at present was caused by the practice of landlords insisting on their tenants entering into agreements on terms which deprived the latter of their rights under the Act. He did not understand what the right hon. Baronet meant by the action of a few agitators in this matter, for the Conference which had discussed the question in Dublin consisted of Irish tenants and many landlords, and was not a meeting of any association. What the Irish tenants wanted and must have, was fixity of tenure at fair and valued rents, and they would not be satisfied until they obtained it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 41: Majority 67.