§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that he was not aware of any question which opened up such a wide field for consideration. The Bill had been previously submitted to the House by him, and it was consequently not now necessary to trouble the House again at any length, if it were not that it had undergone some modifications and additions which it would be needful to describe. The Bill now consisted of two parts. The first dealt with the Ulster tenant-right custom. The second part of the Bill, which was not formerly included in it, endeavoured to extend tenant-right to the whole country, and not alone the North of Ireland. He did not intend to advance any new principles of law with regard to the Ulster tenant-right custom. He proposed simply to legalize a right which had existed for a great number of years, and to carry out more effectually what, he believed, was 58 intended to be done by the 1st clause of the Land Act of 1870. In the Bill, it was taken for granted that tenant-right existed in all holdings in Ulster; and a reference to early records would show that tenant-right was universal in Ulster, and that it was only at intervals that it had been destroyed in particular districts. In order, however, to establish this, there was a difficulty in carrying out the Act of 1870. A tenant had at present a difficulty in establishing his rights in a Court of Law, not because the tenant-right did not exist, but because the onus of proof that it did exist was thrown upon him by the law as it now stood, and because, however much he might be entitled to tenant-right, it might be impossible for him to prove it by evidence which was regarded as admissible or conclusive in a Court of Law. This was more especially the case in regard to the larger and important class of leasehold tenants. It was to obviate this difficulty, and render tenant-right more secure, that the Bill proposed that the onus of proof should be transferred from the tenant to the landlord—that it should be for the latter to prove the land was not subject to tenant-right. Then the Bill provided that a surrender should not destroy the existence of tenant-right. And as there had been many cases in which the rights of tenants had been nominally purchased up, the Bill would provide that no sales should be valid unless it was for a valuable consideration. Then the Bill would give the right of free sale by the tenant of his interest in the land, and that was a provision that had been the most called into question of any of the Bill; but he (Mr. Crawford) held that that privilege was an essential portion of the original Ulster tenant-right, that it was necessary to give security of tenure, and that it was the confidence it had inspired that had made Ulster the most improved part of Ireland. So far the Bill was the same as last year. But, besides that, the Bill contained some provisions applicable to the rest of Ireland. They thought it hard that a mere change of a few pounds on the rental of premises should, as was the case at present, deprive a tenant not only of his tenant-right, but of any claim to compensation under the Land Act. A case in which this had been held showed the necessity of some amendment in the Land Act in order to obviate 59 the occurrence of similar cases in future. Then, in order to facilitate the settlement of the amount of rent as between landlord and tenant, the Bill contained certain provisions for the amendment of the law. At present when a landlord and tenant differed as to the amount of rent, the only way to bring about a settlement of the question was for the landlord to give the tenant notice to quit. This led to heart-burning and contention, and frequently to legal proceedings. Clauses were, therefore, introduced into the Bill which would enable differences as to rent to be settled without going to law, and without any interruption of the friendly feelings which had subsisted, and which it was desirable should subsist, between landlords and tenants. Then he had tried to extend the Bright clauses of the Act of 1870, which were now the subject of inquiry by a Committee upstairs; and with a view to make them more generally available, he proposed that the amount of public money which might be advanced to the tenants to enable them to purchase their holdings should be raised from two-thirds to three-fourths of the value. He felt that this was a question of the utmost importance. It had excited the greatest attention in Ireland, and its settlement was looked forward to with the greatest anxiety both in the North and South of that country. The London Standard had recently expressed its approval of the first and second parts of the hon. and learned Member's (Mr. Butt's) Bill, the former of which proposed to extend the Ulster tenant-right to the whole of Ireland. He (Mr. Crawford) could not give a better description of the purposes of the Bill, the second reading of which he was then moving, than in the words of that paper—
Mr. Butt's Bill is divided into three parts, the first of which proposes to enlarge the Ulster custom to the whole of Ireland. Thus, the two first parts of the Bill have for their object the amendment of the Act of 1870. As regards the former object there can be no doubt that sooner or later it will be attained. If the Ulster custom is good for one province it cannot be bad for the other three. And everyone will admit that the intention of the Legislature should not be allowed to be defeated by mere defect of language. It has been ruled, for example, that if a tenant surrenders his holding to obtain a lease he thereby forfeits his right to compensation for improvements. It is certain 60 that this was not the intention of Parliament, and it is obvious that the ruling must operate against leases, which it ought to be our endeavour to encourage.Questions regarding tenant-right might be difficult of discussion by Englishmen who did not know what the Ulster custom was. Nor was it, perhaps, strange that those who were not acquainted with the facts should view with alarm the proposal to give Irish tenants privileges not possessed by English tenants. But it must be recollected that there was a great difference between Irish and English tenants. In England the improvement of the farms was almost always done by the landlords, while in Ireland they were usually done by the tenants. The Irish tenant had, therefore, a right to expect greater security of tenure than the English tenant, and if they were given this security they would be more inclined to invest their capital in the land. There was no better way of giving that security than by establishing tenant-right, coupled with the right of free sale. In no part of Ireland where tenant-right did not exist had there been any great improvement. He did not accuse the landlords of Ireland, as a rule, with being bad landlords. Many of them were good landlords, and the principles of tenant-right were ordinarily observed in the North; but that was not always the case with new landlords, and the consequence was, that while many estates did not now require the application of the present Bill there was no security that it might not be wanted on a change of proprietorship. If they looked back half-a-century they would find that legislation was even then going on as to this question between landlord and tenant, and legislation must still go on till the tenant had obtained such adequate security as was proposed by the Bill. It might be said that there had been no Petitions in its favour. But he could point to meetings supporting it from month to month, and even when meetings had been held to oppose it, it was a curious fact that hardly a word was said against its principles. The interest which Ulster took in this question had been shown at the last Election, and would be shown still more at any future Election. When he proposed this legislation in favour of the Ulster tenant he believed that he was standing on a plat- 61 form on which the landlord and tenant question might be settled for a long period to come, if not for ever, and that, too, on the best terms. This legislation would, in his opinion, lead to better feeling between landlord and tenant, and give to the latter that security without which no man could be expected to invest his capital in land, and he contended that the Bill was founded on the principles of right and justice; and he was conscientiously convinced that it would do more to settle the question between landlord and tenant in Ireland than any other which could be proposed. As that was his impression, he confidently asked the House to assent to the second reading.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."—(Mr. Sharman Crawford.)
§ MR. PLUNKET, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, having so often before resisted various violent proposals as to the Irish Land Question, he appeared before the House again on the subject with great reluctance; but the hon. Member for Down (Mr. Sharman Crawford) left him no other course. He deplored the agitation which was kept up on the question, and that the settlement of 1870 was not left to bear fruit. Those who instigated these Bills constantly stirred up ill feelings on the part of tenants by dangling before them hopes of what they never could or ought to get; at the same time, denouncing the great advantages which were conferred on the tenants by the Act of 1870, representing it as a failure and contending that the fundamental principles of that measure should be changed. Then, when the House of Commons, after full debate, felt itself bound to reject these Bills by large majorities, not composed of members of one, but of both sides of the House, still the agitation was continued. Class was set against class, tenant against landlord, and the repudiation of existing laws as land-tenure was carried so far as to weaken the confidence of the people in that House, which it was desirable should be entertained by all subjects of Her Majesty, and especially in Ireland. He did not, however, believe that any feeling of that kind would be successfully stirred up or permanently maintained in Ulster. He believed that 62 this tenant-right agitation was beginning to break up. Men like his hon. Friend who proposed reforms short of the most violent alterations were being quickly left behind in the race. Even in the North this Bill, with all the violent clauses it contained, was denounced as quite inadequate by the more reckless agitators. He did not deny that the Bill was not so extreme in its principles, or so violent in its proposals as some of those which had been laid before the House by other hon. Members; but if any check had been given to these visionary demands, he traced that circumstance to the fact that they had last year been rejected by large majorities in that House, composed not of one Party exclusively, but, as he had already said, of hon. Members sitting on each side of the House. The Bill of this year was, in its most important aspects, almost identical with that of last year and the year before. It must, therefore, be with the indulgence of the House that he should try their patience by travelling over the same ground. As had been well said by the hon. Member for Down they could not go much into detail without getting out of Order; but many of the details of this Bill were not germane to main principles. Part of the proposal dealt with the Bright clauses of the Irish Land Act of 1870, and those clauses being submitted to the consideration of a Committee upstairs, this was not the time to discuss them; but this he would say in passing, as this was a Tenant Right Bill which must concern Ulster, that every Member from Ulster upon the Committee, or who had supported the appointment of the Committee, was as anxious as any hon. Member who supported the introduction of this measure, that every facility should be given, and by the best machinery that could be devised, for the carrying out of the policy of those clauses in the Act of 1870. In the first place he would refer to the 7th clause in relation to contracts. That clause provided that after the passing of the Act, no contract should be valid for the acquisition by the landlord from the tenant of the tenant-right custom, unless the contract should be in writing, signed by the tenant, and made for a valuable consideration. That clause, so far as it dealt with tenant-right, and so far as he was able to form an opinion of it, he did 63 not think a mischievous or injurious one. As regarded the general question of tenant-right at the end of a lease, he stated clearly, as far as he was concerned, and he might say the same of every Conservative Member coming from Ulster, they were as desirous as any men could be that the question should be set at rest speedily and finally, and he would take the opportunity of observing that this would now have been done by the law, if it had not been for the hon. Member who introduced the Bill now before the House. He (Mr. Crawford) opposed the Bill brought in last year by the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland). That hon. Gentleman was not now present, and he (Mr. Plunket) felt sure every hon. Member deplored the cause of his absence; but in his absence, he would say that the proposal then made had the assent not only of the Members from Ulster, whose names were on the back of the Bill, but of many, if not all, the other Ulster Members. That Bill differed in some comparatively unimportant respects from the corresponding clauses of the Bill now before the House; but it proposed to carry out the principle, and it was opposed by the hon. Member who now urged his Bill in the interest of the tenant-farmers of Ulster. In dealing with the Bill, his Opposition took much the same ground as it did two years since, when the question was fully debated and afterwards voted on by the House. He might be excused, however, if he referred to the circumstances under which the Ulster claims were passed into the Land Act of 1870. Although his hon. Friend did not charge all the Ulster landlords with being bad landlords, and was good enough to grant a few exceptions as not being utterly bad, still he did imply that strong and new legislation was necessary to keep the landlords of Ulster straight. It was right to remind the House of the circumstances under which the clauses of the 1870 Act, as far as regarded Ulster, were passed. [Cries of "Divide!"] He was speaking strictly to the Bill, explaining it, and he held it was an important subject, and he should be allowed to proceed. As regarded the clause dealing with the sale of holdings by the tenant, either by auction or contract, he could not imagine anything which would be more detrimental both to the interests of tenants, as well as 64 landlords, than that a landlord should not be allowed to exercise a control in the selection of a tenant. The clause provided that a landlord must have a "reasonable objection," but how was the reasonable objection to be determined? The landlord might suspect the proposed tenant of being a seditious character, or he might be a drunkard, or there might be many objections sufficiently reasonable to the landlord; but, according to the Bill, unless he was prepared to put down his objections to the man in black and white he had no right to take exception to him. Could such a provision be in the interest of tenants themselves? Had it not been one of the advantages of the Ulster custom that the landlord selected the incoming tenant from the adjoining tenantry, from among those with whom he was accustomed to live in harmony and peace? Clause 6 gave the tenant an absolute right to sell his holding by auction, and that was one of the most monstrous proposals that could be made. In the reasons given for the Bill the hon. Member for Down had only adduced a single case of hardship or abuse under the Ulster custom, and even now at the end of three years he had not mentioned the name.
§ MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDI beg pardon. The names are at the service of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ MR. PLUNKETsaid, that even though the hon. Member was able to give a few names, he would hardly contend that that would be sufficient justification for such a change in the law as was proposed by the Bill. He had a full recollection of the circumstances under which the Land Act had been passed, and he also remembered the Coercion Acts which were also carried, because they were found to be necessary at that time. There were, he said, circumstances connected with the Administration of that period which rendered the coercion laws that were passed necessary; they had hoped that while those penal measures would have been but temporary, the large concessions of the Land Act would have remained permanent and undisturbed. He rejoiced to think that half this happy forecast was being fast fulfilled, and that coercion and its causes were fading out in Ireland. And now he put it to the House whether it was 65 wise that they should be constantly agitating this land question? If the tenants of Ireland were to be constantly told that they were oppressed, would there be any likelihood of their settling down in contentment? The tenantry of Ulster were well off as undoubtedly they deserved to be; but their position was grounded on other conditions besides the Land Act of 1870. It was grounded on the good relations existing, and which had for centuries existed, between landlord and tenant in that part of Ireland. He knew that the hon. Member for Down denied that; but he contended that, nevertheless, it was a fact. He hoped the present Government would resist any attempt to alter the spirit of the Act of 1870, and would not allow this Bill to become law. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that as an English Member he had a right to address the House on this subject. [Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERasked if the hon. Member proposed to second the Motion.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he did. As an English Member he was entitled to say something. He felt that the Act of 1870 was a fair settlement— [Loud cries of "Divide!"] The hon. Member proceeded to address the House, but was quite inaudible owing to the noise.
§ DR. BRADYMr. Speaker, I rise to Order. It appears to me we came here to discuss this Bill fully and perfectly out to the end. This has been done to a large extent by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket); but now the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) rises to tide over the few minutes which remain, with the clear object of preventing the division which we all desire to see being taken. [An hon. MEMBER: He is talking it out.] I should like to have your opinion, Sir, on the point.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) is in possession of the House. He has done nothing that is out of Order.
§ MR. GOLDNEYcontinued, when—
§ It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.