RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 09 July 1878 vol 241 cc1112-53

MR. ERRINGTON,

in rising to call attention to the Irish Land Act, 1870; and to move— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will cause an Inquiry to be made as to how far the Act in its present form really secures to the Irish tenant the benefits intended to be conferred on him by it; how far Clause 3 has operated to check capricious eviction; whether notwithstanding the provisions of the Act excessive rents confiscating the improvements declared by it to be the property of the tenant have been exacted; and whether any, and, if so, what steps should be taken by amending the Act or otherwise to render it more effective; said: Mr. Speaker, I own I approach this question with even more than ordinary anxiety, and that for two reasons. First, because it really is so serious and so arduous, that I sincerely wish it were in hands more experienced than mine; and, secondly, because I cannot help feeling that at first sight I may appear to be open to the imputation that I am endeavouring, by some sort of a side-wind, to induce the House to consider over again, a question which has already been discussed and decided this Session. I hope I am incapable of anything of the kind, and that if hon. Gentlemen will bear with me for a moment, I shall be able to clear myself from that imputation; and, let me add, that in the observations I have to make, I shall try to be as brief as I can, and not to trespass more than necessary on the time and patience of the House. Sir, this Motion has been most carefully framed, not with the object of merely raising a technically narrow issue, but in order to confine this discussion, as far as may be, strictly within the four corners of the Act of 1870, and thereby to give it a really practical character. We desire, in fact, to review the legislation which Parliament has already seen fit to apply to Ireland; and not, on this occasion, to discuss measures which, at some future time, it may be deemed expedient to adopt. And here I ought, in passing, frankly to admit that my own views and expectations do carry me further in the way of reform than anything strictly contained within the Act of 1870; but that is no reason why I should not loyally accept and try to make the best of that Act. And, in the same way as in the early days of Parliamentary Reform, many sincere Reformers, though they might look forward with a sort of prophetic expectation to such measures as vote by ballot or household suffrage, could still devote themselves honestly to develop the very moderate proposals of 1832—so I think it is a wise and prudent course for Irish Members to take their stand boldly on the Act of 1870; to recognize the great concessions which that Act has made to our just demands; to endeavour to improve, and amend, and make it as efficient as possible; and, above all, not to sacrifice the probabilities of to-day to the possibilities of to-morrow. Let me at once indicate the lines on which I propose to proceed. This Motion is one for Inquiry. In order to justify such Inquiry, I think I must show three things. First, I must define exactly what I understand to have been the objects and intention of the Act of 1870, and of those who passed it; secondly, I must make a primâ facie case, at least, that those objects and intentions have not been fairly and adequately carried out during the seven years in which the Act has been in operation; thirdly, I must satisfy the House that such an Inquiry as we ask for would probably tend to the more effectual realization of those objects, and that it would not be attended by any evil consequences. Now, Sir, as to the first of these points, the Preamble of the Act gives me little assistance, for it merely states, in the usual general terms, that it is expedient to amend the law. I am, therefore, obliged to turn, for one moment, to the debates which accompanied the passing of the Act. And here I would remind hon. Gentlemen that the Act was passed not by any mere Parliamentary or Party majority; on the contrary, it received the distinct adhesion of the Leaders of both sides; it was in no sense a triumph of Party over Party, or class over class. And, although I know that there was a division on the second reading in this House, and although the minority of 11 on that occasion did contain the name of one distinguished individual, who, when he gave that vote, perhaps, little expected that he would be so soon called on to take an official interest in this great question, still I contend that that minority, by its very constitution, actually served to accentuate what was virtually the unanimous adhesion of Parliament and of the country to the principles of that measure. And I should observe, in passing, that it may probably turn out that to the concessions made in order to secure this most important quasi-unanimity are due many of the shortcomings of which we now have to complain. But what were the principles of the measure? I turn with pleasure to the speech of an hon. Friend of mine who sits opposite, one who has always been regarded as a great authority on this question, and whom certainly nobody can accuse of being unduly biassed against the landlord side—I allude to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh); and he, Sir, speaking on the second reading, most fairly, as he always does, said he supported the Bill because it contained— Two essential principles which he had long regarded as affording the fairest basis for legislation upon this important subject. These two principles were, the institution of penalties to prevent capricious evictions, and the securing to the tenant the right of compensation for substantial improvements executed at his own expense."—[3 Hansard, cxcix. 1406–7.] And he went on to say— The general effect would, he hoped, be to give to the Irish tenant-at-will a feeling of security to which up to this time on some properties he had been a stranger."—[Ibid., 1413.] I should be quite content to take this as my basis; but, perhaps, the House will allow me to quote one most pregnant sentence from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, then First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Gladstone), on introducing the Bill. Speaking of the objects of the Bill, he said—" Again, I say, the evil with which we have to contend is insecurity of tenure." He then enumerated the four forms in which this insecurity chiefly manifested itself. They were—First, by confiscation of customary privileges; secondly, by lavish service of notices to quit; thirdly, by direct eviction; fourthly, the form with which I am chiefly concerned this evening, for it resumes in itself the most pressing and practical defects of the Act. In the words of the right hon. Gentleman— And the fourth has appeared when demands for increased rent have been made on the tenant founded solely upon the value which he, by his labour and his capital, has added to the soil. That power of demanding an increased rent is entirely dependent on the ultima ratio of eviction; and, treading sometimes but too closely on the heels of that power, there has been the ultima ratio itself; which, as I have shown, within the last half-century has been made far more formidable by the direct action of Parliament."—[Ibid., 355.] And now I am in a position to define the objects of the Act. I would divide those objects into direct objects and one indirect object; and gathering together, as well as I can, the minor and less important points, I would say that, broadly, there were two main direct objects—First, to secure to the tenant a fair and reasonable amount of stability in his occupation; and, secondly, to secure to him the full value or enjoyment of the improvements made at his own expense. Then, the indirect object, which was to be attained through the medium of these direct objects, was to set up in the country a general sense of security and confidence, which should go far to efface the traces of an unfortunate past, and lay the foundations for a happier and more prosperous future. And now, how far have these objects been attained? Sir, the Act was received with hope and gratitude, and, certainly, as an important part of that great message of peace of which we have heard so much. It is, no doubt, sometimes alleged that the expectations it raised were unreasonable and extravagant. They may have been so in some interested quarters; but I entirely deny that anything of the sort was general, and I concur in the force and truth of the eloquent words on this point of the right hon. Gentlemen I have already quoted. He said— After so long a period of depression and despondency, I cannot, for one moment, be surprised that, in some cases where this hope has been revived, it has in the minds of some been such as to exhibit elements of a riotous exuberance. But, on the whole, I do not think there is much to complain of in this respect."—[3 Hansard, cxcix. 349.] I am convinced, and I appeal to those who know Ireland best to bear me out, that had these two main bonâ fide objects of the Act been to a reasonable degree effected, you would have gone far towards establishing that sense of security of which we all feel so much the want. But what has been the case? I fear it requires no Inquiry to satisfy us that this indirect object has not been attained, and that so far as it is concerned the Act has been an absolute and total failure; on this point all are agreed, the friends of the Act as well as its enemies. Now, I would point out a very important consideration. If this indirect object had been attained, that would have been, I take it, clear and positive proof that the two direct objects had also been attained, and for this reason—because it is impossible to conceive a general sense of security existing without there having previously been established a fair amount of confidence in security of property of all sorts, in separate and individual cases. Now, I admit that the converse of this proposition is not equally self-evident or necessarily true, still the presumption in its favour is very strong. But I do not wish to rest my case merely on presumption, however strong; we can carry it much further; and if, in addition to this presumption, I can show that the provisions of the Act, as tested and developed by seven years' practice, not only permit, but absolutely lead to and encourage, violation of its avowed objects; and if, further, I can give instances, not of a mere occasional or sensational kind, but of common-place every-day occurrence, in which such violation is taking place in different parts of the country, that, I think, will be a primâ facie case on which we shall have a right to ask the House to help us to proceed. Sir, the fundamental maxim on which this Act was built, was, that a large proportion of Irish tenants were so absolutely dependent on the land, that they required more protection than the law then gave them against the possible abuse of the landlord's power. It was felt, as I have stated, by those who passed the Act, that the two principal forms under which this abuse prevailed was, first, by direct eviction—that is eviction for its own sake; and, secondly, by eviction used as a lever to enforce conditions of tenancy more or less harsh or oppressive. Recognizing, further, in the landlord' sunlimited power of eviction, the ultima ratio on which such abuses rested, they saw the necessity of placing some check on this absolute power. The Act tried to do this by laying down a scale of money payments which should act in a two-fold capacity—on the one hand, as a deterrent to the landlord from evicting except for just and serious cause; and on the other, as a compensation to the tenant for his loss from eviction, if enforced without such just and serious cause. According to the words frequently used in the debate, the payment was to be "a fine on causeless eviction;" it was also to "give to the tenant shelter against loss from eviction, and make that shelter effectual." Sir, this was a totally new and tentative idea, and, naturally, it offered great difficulties of detail. Accordingly, no part of the Act was more fully discussed than this Clause 3; and I am sure it must be evident to the House that, on the proper adjustment of this scale of compensation, the whole failure or success of the Act to protect the tenant necessarily turned. Now, if hon. Gentlemen will consider the matter for a moment, they will see that the efficiency of any such scale of payment as a deterrent to the landlord, necessarily depends on its sufficiency as compensation to the tenant; for if it falls altogether below the value which the tenant, in accordance with social conditions, sets on his tenancy, he will not take it into consideration when making his bargain with the landlord, and he will submit to any terms rather than willingly avail himself of it; the landlord, knowing this, will be able to enforce any terms he pleases, however crushing, short of the very last straw, without fear of having to pay the fine. We contend this has occurred in practice, and I challenge anyone to find me a case in which the tenant has ever weighed the compensation offered by the Act as against his loss in leaving his farm, even under pressure of the hardest terms. Hon. Gentlemen have heard a great deal about the value Irish farmers set upon their holdings. I can assure them, Sir, that it is a consideration which cannot be exaggerated. To the Irish tenant to leave his farm means not only distress and poverty, or, in some cases, emigration from a country he loves very much; its means the ruin and degradation of himself and his family, and it excites a feeling which we certainly should be the last to condemn—an intense dread of sinking in the social scale with his family, from the comparatively high caste of an occupier of land, no matter how small the amount, to the far lower condition of a day labourer, in a country where there is no considerable or varied demand for day labour; and where, therefore, the status of a day labourer is not what it is elsewhere, and what we should like to see it. You may consider these social conditions most unfortunate and most deplorable, but they exist, and they are the social facts under whose inexorable logic contract in land is not and cannot be free. These are the only conditions which could ever have justified Parliament in passing any such law as the Land Act, and if they justified you in passing that law to give protection to the tenant, they imperatively call on you to see that that protection is effectual. But can we say it is effectual, when we see tenants submitting constantly to the hardest terms, to the severest rents, rather than fall back on the protection of the Act? These are the facts which account for that phenomenon so strange when judged by ordinary economic rules, yet so often observed in Ireland, of men willing to give large sums for the mere possession, or good-will, as it is called, of land held under the severest terms, and screwed up to the extremes of rack-rent; and, on the other hand, of tenants submitting to almost any terms, and to rents which they know must keep them down to the level of pauperism, rather than relinquish their hold of the land without which life is not tolerable to them. It is in these facts, Sir, that we must seek for the standard and measure of the value which social conditions place on the occupation of land, and no compensation can ever give effectual protection if it falls entirely and far below that mark. Clearly, then, if this compensation is totally insufficient, and, therefore, inefficient, to give protection, you might as well never have passed the Act. But I go further—you had much better repeal it now, because not only does it permit, but, in its present form, it absolutely leads to, a violation of its own objects. It does so in this way. As was anticipated at the time of its passing, the Act has undoubtedly stirred up a spirit of resistance and irritation among many landlords; or, at all events, a desire, perhaps very natural, to protect themselves, as they call it, against the operation of the Act. How, then, does the tenant stand? To a certain extent he is worse off than he was; for while the compensation is too small to protect him against the old dangers, he has to contend with new dangers, which the Act itself has called into existence. One way in which many landlords are avowedly protecting themselves is by raising their rents; and that a more or less general and rapid raising of rents is going on, whatever the cause, I think none will dispute. Of course, I do not for a moment contend that this raising of rents is entirely due to this feeling on the part of the landlords. There are many economic changes going on which fairly account for it in many cases. But, I shall be asked, why should not the Irish landlord raise his rent if he pleases? Sir, my answer is very plain. The Irish tenant has never quarrelled with his obligation to pay rent; he has never quarrelled with the right of the landlord fairly and periodically to raise that rent; but what we contend—and it is the ground taken by the Act itself, and is now generally recognized in England—is, that in a great many cases the increased value of the land depends so much on the improvements made by the tenant, that you cannot raise the rent to the full value of the land without making the tenant pay rent for his own improvements, and, of course, depriving him of that enjoyment of them which I defined it to be one of the objects of the Act to secure to him. Now, as we have seen, the power of increasing rents rests entirely on the power of eviction. And if, as I have tried to show, the control over the latter is insufficient, clearly there is nothing, as far as the Land Act is concerned, to stand between the tenant and any increase of rent, however extreme. I may quote a few words from an authority, well known in this House, as to the power the landlord still has under the present law. Mr. Justice Barry, in his Charge on the Galtee case, speaking of those who bought property cheap with a view to make profit by raising the rents—and, of course, his statement applies equally to my argument—said— Whether he gave one farthing or one million sterling for the estates his rights are the same, and whatever rent he thinks proper to insist upon he must get, or he can by law recover his land from the yearly tenants. Thus, I contend, that the tenant may be, and in many cases is being, either summarily deprived, by a sudden raising of his rent, or slowly, but surely, being elbowed out, by repeated smaller raisings, of the property in his improvements which the Act intended to give him. The remedy for this, while remaining strictly within the spirit and terms of the Act, is clear—you must give power to the Chairman to award a higher scale of compensation in certain cases. I am fortified in this view by the opinion of several experienced lawyers and Chairmen of counties, with whom I have been in communication, verbally and by writing, on the subject. I hold in my hand a letter from one of the most experienced Land Judges, in which he tells me that though he was at first hostile to the Act, he has come by experience to recognize its great merits and value; and he says he is convinced that, with an extension of his power, under Clause 3, to grant a higher scale of compensation, he could settle satisfactorily, not only every case which now comes before him, but others which are never brought into Court at present, but which he knows to be occurring, and which are exciting and keeping up dissatisfaction and distrust. But there are other ways in which landlords and their tenants are defeating the intentions of the Act. One is, by forcing on tenants leases, often containing stringent and penal clauses, but the great hardship of which is, that they create a new tenancy, and, by law, place an estoppal on all claims for past improvements. I hold in my hand a specially harsh specimen of such agreements. It is a printed form for a lease for one year. I am sure English landlords would regard such an instrument with reprobation; for not only, as a new tenancy, does it bar all claims for past improvements, but it has been held by decision of the highest Court of Appeal, also, to bar claim for disturbance as a tenancy from year to year certain; but, further, being a lease, it makes the tenant liable to eviction, without notice, at the end of any year; it is, in effect, a renewal of the old practice of serving notice to quit every year as a matter of course, on tenants-at-will, in order to keep them in thorough subjection. Another ingenious plan is to induce tenants to consent to an increase of rent by a promise from the agent that he will not enforce the new rent, but will give receipt in full for it on payment of the old rent. This is, of course, a new tenancy, and places the tenant entirely in the power of the landlord. I know cases in which this has occurred, and is occurring. I mention these chiefly as illustrations of the spirit in which many landlords and their agents are acting, and trying to protect themselves against the Act. Strange encouragement, surely, to a sense of security and confidence! But I may be told—"Even if you have established that under the Act, as developed and tested by seven years' working, such violations of its intentions may, probably will, or even must, necessarily occur, we want to know, as practical men, whether in practice they actually do occur?" Sir, I have the greatest respect and admiration for the practical spirit of this House, and though I must say it is carrying that spirit rather far to insist on proof that what must necessarily occur does actually occur, still I am quite willing to meet the challenge. I do not propose, Sir, to trouble the House with further details of the important cases which have been already brought before it. The details of those cases are often very shocking and very telling, and they are naturally dwelt on, because, from their importance and notoriety, they have been thoroughly sifted in some public or official manner, and are, therefore, capital illustrations. I would rather, this evening, rest my argument on a number of small, obscure, but typical and widely-diffused cases of every-day hardship, showing a general tendency to defeat the intentions of the law. Here my difficulty is not want of cases; on the contrary, I have so many that I have tried to classify them according to different parts of Ireland. But there is this drawback—that in many of them I have only scanty, and, generally, one-sided information. And, although I only allude to those in which, either from my own knowledge, or the reliability of my correspondents, I can trust the accuracy of the information so far as it goes, still I feel too much the responsibility with which we speak in this House, and the respect which is due to the House, to make statements which, however true in themselves, being necessarily one-sided and ex parte, would suggest often very serious conclusions, which more complete information might qualify or explain away. But that, of course, is one reason for asking for an inquiry. Therefore, I am obliged to pick out such cases as may, by some accident, have been sifted in the Courts, or elsewhere; and this is a disadvantage, because it debars me from many, apparently, more telling cases; and it must be remembered that for one case which happens to get known, numbers are never heard of beyond the immediate neighbourhood in which they occur. At this advanced hour I shall not venture to trespass on the House with more than a very few short cases. One occurred recently in a Southern county—Clare, I think—on a small property of £50 rental, paid by five or six small tenants. The landlord, Mr. Westrop, being desirous to sell his property to the best advantage, had it valued by his agent, and the rent raised to £70, which was considered a fair increase, and at this rental it was sold. The purchaser immediately proceeded to raise the rents from £70 to £200 a-year; and not content with this, required these unfortunate tenants to make up among them a sum of £200, which he was to hold without interest, as a fund from which to recoup himself for any defalcations on the part of the tenants. Apparently, he thought it not unlikely such defalcations would occur. If so, he was not disappointed; for, as might be expected, the tenants were wholly unable to meet this heavy increase of rent, and soon got into the greatest difficulties. After a very short time the owner died, and the property devolved on his widow—the management, however, being in the hands of her brother—who found things in such a desperate state that he made an agreement with the tenants to reduce the rents from £200 to £150, and at this reduction to give them leases, having, first of all, liquidated the arrears of rent already accrued out of the £200 fund. The agreement had proceeded so far that the tenants had actually arranged to pay £3 each for the costs of their leases, when the widow, the owner of the property, repudiated the agreement, and ordered the rents to be raised again to £200. Again, the tenants got into difficulties and arrears, finally broke, and four families have been evicted, and are now seeking compensation from the Land Court. This, Sir, is a small case, hardly heard of out of the immediate neighbourhood; and yet, in harshness, I think, it rivals that so ably brought forward the other night by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray), and has done incalculable harm in its own small way. There is another case I would cite, as a specially good illustration of the difficulty of getting at the whole truth, and thoroughly to the bottom of these cases. In this case, though it occurred, and, I may say, is still occurring in the County Longford, and in a district with which I am thoroughly acquainted, I cannot state to the House a single detail except such as have come to our knowledge through the Law Courts. Sir, for many years a considerable property in the County Longford, called Doory Hall, belonging to an old family, has been the scene of agrarian troubles and disturbances of various kinds, culminating in outrage and murder. Some years ago a bailiff was shot dead on the property, and in 1876 occurred the affair of which I am going to speak. A Mr. Cusack, a Dublin solicitor, has for many years been agent of the property; his name, I believe, now appears in Domesday Book as owner; but I am not in a position to draw any inference from this. At all events, he still manages the property. In 1876, he was fired at and wounded in Dublin, outside his own, house, in Stephen's Green. A man was arrested for the offence almost on the spot, and turned out to be a brother of one of the farmers on this Longford estate. He was brought to trial, and when I say he was defended by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick, the House will understand how ably that defence was conducted. It was, of course, the object of the defence to explain away any motive for the offence, and the prosecutor himself, I believe, stoutly maintained that whatever the motive might be, it could not possibly be agrarian; while all over the County Longford the reverse was notorious. The Crown, however, gave clear evidence that there was ample motive in a legal sense. I need not trouble the House with the evidence itself, but I should like to quote the words in which the Judge commented upon it; and when I say that the learned Judge who presided on that occasion was Mr. Justice Keogh, I am sure the House will give his words the weight they deserve. The Judge said— As to the motive, James Keenan had very considerable grounds for dispute with Mr. Cusack. Independent of the two actions for trespass, there was an action brought for the recovery of a double or penal rent, and that action was carried out to the utmost extremity. Mr. Cusack obtained judgment, and levied, and was paid, and still had £73 6s. in his pocket, the tenant having really engaged to pay him exactly half the amount which he had at present in his pocket. Therefore, it was perfectly idle to say there was not a dispute and vindictiveness between that tenant and his landlord. His Lordship did not at all concur in the observation that was thrown out, that leases of this kind were of a common character in this country. He could positively say that in the whole course of his experience at the Bar and on the Bench he never saw one of them, and he had no wish ever to see one. He (Judge Keogh) must honestly admit that he opened his eyes when he heard of a double rent reserved in the lease, and not kept as a mere threat, but absolutely enforced and paid; and it was perfectly idle to tell common sense men that an Irish peasant having been compelled to pay twice the value of his land, that he did not leave Dublin on that 25th March with feelings that would be most improperly described as good feelings towards his landlord. Well, Sir, the prisoner was acquitted and Mr. Cusack, under protection of police in Dublin, and of constabulary in Longford, continues to manage and receive the rents of this property on which we are told there is no agrarian disturbance; the property, however, continues to be a source of trouble in the country, and of anxiety to the magistrates and landlords of the neighbourhood. I see an hon. Friend of mine opposite who is a large and respected proprietor and resident in that immediate neighbourhood, and I think I may appeal to him to bear me out in what I have said. [Mr. KING-HARMAN: Hear, hear!] I believe my hon. Friend and I know a great deal more than I have stated about the case; but I do not wish to state more than has been actually proved in Court, or is matter of notoriety in the country. There is one other case I should like to quote, because it is very curious in its details, and because it illustrates well how irresponsible a landlord's power still may be. There is a property in County Cork, belonging to a Dublin gentleman; on which, among others, were two farms adjacent to each other, one occupied by an old woman who wished to retire from business, and, accordingly, she handed over her farm to a man, a stranger on the property, getting from him £500 for the good-will. It seems the landlord agreed to the transfer, but did not know of nor sanction the payment of the money. On going down to receive his rents, he was greatly startled to hear from the old woman's neighbour of the sum she had received, and to which he thought he was entitled. The farmer assured him that not only had the money been paid, but that the farm was well worth it, and that he himself would willingly have given that sum for it. "Then," said the landlord, "if you will give the money now, you shall have the farm." The bargain was struck and the money paid; the man who had given £500 evicted, and the farm handed over to the tenant, who thus became the occupier of both farms. The evicted man brought an action for compensation; he recovered a considerable sum for the disturbance; but did not recover the £500, as it had been paid without the landlord's consent or knowledge. Now comes the strangest part of the story. The landlord sent for the evicted man, and asked what he would give for the original farm of the man on whose account he had been evicted, and who now had got hold of the two farms. The answer was £500; again the bargain was struck, the money paid, the tenant with the two farms evicted from his original farm, which was given to the new man. Thus, in this strange comedy of exchange, the landlord succeeded in pocketing £1,000. Now, I do not mention this as a case of great hardship, for none of the parties come into Court with very clean hands; it probably was a case of diamond cut diamond; but it does illustrate how arbitrary a landlord can still be, and how well it may pay him to use his rights with the greatest severity in spite of the Act. But, with regard to the two other cases, representing, as they do, many obscure cases, never heard of out of their own immediate neighbourhood, the House can understand what intense feeling they excite; how each becomes a centre for doubt and distrust. The tenants in the neighbourhood, of course, feel when they see their neighbours so treated, that they owe their own safety not to the law which is powerless to protect others, but merely to the forbearance and kindness of their landlords. But the highest and best personal qualities are an uncertain foundation on which to raise a general sense of security and confidence, and none have better practical knowledge and experience of this than the Irish tenants. Therefore, Sir, I do ask most earnestly that the whole question in all it bearings may be inquired into. I doubt not some of the cases will be disproved. So much the better. I wish they all were, and could be shown to be baseless. I do not ask for inquiry to prove that I am right, but only to ascertain whether I am or not. I have no doubt the result of an inquiry will be to show exaggeration on both sides; but it will also prove clearly that if this Act is to be maintained, and if it is not to be a delusion and a snare, it must be amended, and amended in many and important particulars. Now, Sir, I do not want hon. Gentlemen to think that this Motion is brought forward in a crude and ill-considered way, or to suppose that, finding ourselves in difficulty, we come here in a helpless way to ask for a Commission of Inquiry to do something we know not what. On the contrary, the matter has been thoroughly thought out, and I am quite prepared to suggest solutions for many of the difficulties I have indicated, which a Commission might fairly be expected to consider, and, perhaps, to recommend to the House. At this late hour, however, I can only venture to touch briefly on this fresh but important branch of the subject. For instance, such an Amendment as the following might make the Act more effective in protecting the tenant against undue increase of rent, perhaps the most pressing problem with which we have to deal. The Act at present distinguishes two classes of eviction—the one, eviction under circumstances just and reasonable; the other it calls disturbance and imposes a penalty on it. I would constitute a third class, which I would call aggravated disturbance, and it would arise thus— When a tenant complains of a proposed raising of his rent as excessive, I would give the Chairman the power not merely as at present to declare the rent excessive, and award a low scale of compensation for eviction, consequent on its enforcement; but I would give him the further power, after going into all the circumstances of the case, to suggest to the landlord a fair rent, and if the landlord refused to accept it, and insisted on evicting in spite of the willingness of the tenant to pay it, to call this a case of aggravated disturbance, and to award a scale of compensation much higher than the present scale. I should like to illustrate this by figures, but it would delay me too long to do so now. This at once suggests another Amendment. The country people in Ireland, while generally admitting the fairness and impartiality of the Land Judges, complain of the very natural inexperience and ignorance of the details of agriculture and land of many of these Judges. In the Bill, as originally introduced, provision was made for the appointment of skilled assessors to advise the Court on these technical questions. I would propose to restore this provision, and appoint four assessors for the whole of Ireland, one to sit with each Chairman on the hearing of land cases. And in answer to those who tell us that it would be impossible to find men qualified for these duties, I can point to a precedent in an Act passed in 1851 to regulate the procedure in Ireland for taking lands compulsorily for railways. Under that Act, three valuators settle all the intricate questions arising in such proceedings, questions involving the most complicated valuations; and, although there have been appeals, the system generally has worked very well. There are, of course, other points on which amendments are urgently needed, and which a Commission would fully consider with all the light of recent experience, and with the fair prospect of making the Act more efficient. But, after all, Sir, this is no one-sided affair. We are not the only people who are asking for inquiry. Many Irish landlords, both in and out of the House, are as anxious as we are for it. I am permitted by the kindness of a friend to quote an interesting letter from one who is recognized and well known in this country as one of the fairest authorities on this question, whose letters to The Times hon. Members have no doubt often read with interest. I mean the Knight of Kerry, himself a most excellent and popular landlord, and whose only fault is, perhaps, in thinking every other landlord as good as himself. Here is what he says, writing a few days ago, and referring to opinions expressed two years ago— I thought then, as I think now, that there is no class of men in the community who, under existing circumstances, are so interested as the landlords of Ireland in having such a thorough and sifting inquiry as will bring out into the fullest light of day all their dealings with their tenants under the Act or otherwise. If, as I believe most firmly, the charge that they are engaged in so exorbitantly raising their rents as to confiscate their tenants' improvements is absolutely fabulous, it is evident how intolerable it must be to those who believe, as I do, that such accusations should be made, unless an opportunity of bringing them to a test at the earliest possible moment be afforded. But if, on the contrary, I unhappily am mistaken, and those who on these subjects hold opinions the very reverse of mine are right, I hold that it is still more essential that there should be so searching an inquiry as will not only show that there are delinquents, but make it clear when, where, and to what extent, these delinquencies exist. I say, then, in all sincerity, that landlords having been thus accused, whether justly or unjustly, I hope we may have an inquiry, and of the most searching character that is possible; and I am glad to believe that nine out of every ten Irish landlords will cordially endorse every syllable I have here written. I have further testimony, also important in its way, though from a very different source. Mr. Nathaniel Buckley, after the rejection of my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary's Motion for Inquiry into the Galtee case, writes to The Daily News to defend himself, and uses these words— I have no objection to the discussion of the relationship between landlord and tenant in Ireland. It is a grave and important question, and is worthy of the consideration of all thinking men. An inquiry, honestly conducted, would probably dispel a number of delusive ideas, and a more healthy public opinion would be created. But, Sir, in this House we have Irish landlords who support this demand. There is the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hereford (Mr. G. Clive), who for three or four successive Sessions has had a Notice on the Paper to move for an inquiry similar to this one, with the expectation of showing that our charges against landlords are groundless. Then there is the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. H. A. Herbert), who last year, as an Amendment, to the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue), was to have moved for a similar inquiry. This year, he finds the question is so pressing that he has actually introduced a Bill, which would carry out some of the reforms we advocate. I am sorry not to see these hon. Gentlemen in their places; I should certainly claim their support this evening. And, after all, I hope we have some common ground. We all desire, I am sure, to elicit the truth whatever it is—for whatever it is, it is, I am convinced, the only safe and honourable ground to go on. Surely, that is ground on which the Chief Secretary for Ireland need have no great reluctance to meet us? Indeed, I should regard his doing so this evening as a matter of course, only I am sorry to say we have so often had to admire the truly inscrutable ways of Irish Government, that I am prepared for any thing rather than to see this question dealt with in a wise and statesmanlike way. But, Sir, finally, and apart from all our differences, there is one great result this inquiry would certainly have. Whichever way it went, it would, at all events, help to open the eyes of the honest, industrious, and sober-minded majority of the Irish tenants, and convince them that their case is not yet desperate. It would show them that they have in the Land Act a valuable concession, and—not less important—the precious assurance that England desires to do them justice; while this inquiry itself would be a further assurance that English justice is not intended to be a mere vain and empty phrase. Would that be a small and unimportant result? I believe you can effect it. I believe that by giving this inquiry you can go far to confer on Ireland this inestimable blessing; and if you do, it will take rank among the greatest which Parliament will ever have conferred on that country. In conclusion, I would say one word about the only argument which can, I think, be urged against me with any force. I shall be told we want to unsettle a recent settlement. That we shall foment and keep up an unhealthy agitation. I can imagine, if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, who always so gallantly comes forward as the champion of what I may call the high prerogative of the landlords, does me the honour to answer me this evening, with what plausibility and eloquence he will urge all this. But the argument, plausible as it is, may be carried too far. I attack the recent settlement because it is no real settlement, and in order to lead to a real settlement. It is not we who are exciting agitation. Agitation exists; and I am confident that, so far from increasing it, nothing would tend so much to allay it as such an inquiry as I ask for. Sir, of course it is a bad thing to do anything to foment and keep up unnecessary agitation; it is a bad thing to be always meddling with delicate questions, especially when they involve the rights of property and vested interests, which must be always sacred; it is a bad thing to excite hopes in ignorant and uneducated minds which you know you cannot and ought not to gratify. But there are worse things than these. It is a worse thing to have raised honest hopes, and then by delay and disappointment to drive those in whom you have raised them into foolish or useless extremes; it is a worse thing, having begun a great act of justice, having put your hand to the plough, to look back, discouraged, because entire success may not have awaited your first efforts, or dismayed by clamour; and it is a worse thing to give any colour to that pernicious fallacy—perhaps not unnaturally too prevalent in Ireland—that to this Imperial Parliament, to this great Inquest of the nation, it is vain to appeal, I will not say for redress, but even for consideration, even for inquiry into the troubles and difficulties of a long-suffering people. Sir, I have shown—first, what were the objects and intentions of the Act of 1870, and of those who passed it; secondly, I have tried to make a primâ facie case that those objects and intentions have not been adequately realized during seven years' practical working of the Act; thirdly, I have tried to convince the House that such an inquiry as I ask for would probably tend to a more adequate accomplishment of those objects, and that it would not be attended by any evil results; therefore it is that I now move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will cause an Inquiry to be made as to how far the Irish Land Act, 1870, in its present form, really secures to the Irish tenant the benefits intended to be conferred on him by it; how far Clause 3 has operated to check capricious eviction; whether, notwithstanding the provisions of the Act, excessive rents confiscating the improvements declared by it to be the property of the tenant have boon exacted; and whether any, and, if so, what steps should be taken, by amending the Act or otherwise, to render it more effective."—(Mr. Errington.)

MR. KING-HARMAN

, as an Irish landlord, admitted that there was some justification for the feeling of distrust which existed among certain portions of the Irish tenantry; and, as a landlord who wished to do his duty amongst his tenants, on the principle of "live and let live," he should not be disposed to object to the Resolution. While, on the one hand, it would be well to expose the dealings of those who brought discredit on their position as landlords and upon their name as Irishmen, on the other hand, the inquiry would have the effect of placing in their proper light the large body of Irish landlords who did their duty, and wished and intended to do their duty. The "Gombeen" men—those who lent money at usurious interest to the small tenants—were responsible for a great deal of the hardship which ensued. Beginning life in a small way—say as village shopkeepers or publicans—these men managed, by usury and other not very creditable means, to scrape a little money together and buy land, with the object of squeezing as much out of their unhappy tenants as possible, and yet their acts of oppression were generally alluded to as landlord cases. He believed an inquiry would clear the landlords, and might save the tenants.

MR. HEYGATE

congratulated the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington) on the moderate character of his speech, which so favourably contrasted with the utterances they were accustomed to hear on the subject of Irish land. He (Mr. Heygate) believed that any discussion on this question must tend to clear the public mind of many misconceptions; and on that ground he was inclined primâ facie to vote for an inquiry; but, on the whole, he agreed with what had been said on a former occasion by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, as to the unwisdom of entering into a "fishing" inquiry, without a sufficient justification, or the probability of being able to define the limits of such inquiry. No doubt, a few hard cases had been cited; but if, as the hon. Member stated, compensation was being sued for in one instance with every prospect of success, and if, in another, neither party came into Court with clean hands, and so on, those cases might be left to work out their own cure. It certainly did not appear to him that the hon. Member had made out a strong case for an alteration of the law; and as for a mere inquiry, it was open to this objection—that it would probably be misunderstood by the Irish people, and be accepted by them as a proof of the allegation of existing injustice, and as a prelude to further reforms. He objected to the words of the Motion referring to "excessive rents confiscating tenants' improvements," as altogether inapplicable to the case, and even as unsupported by the arguments of the hon. Gentleman. He admitted the temperate manner in which the hon. Gentleman had brought forward his Motion; but he altogether denied that he had made out any case, either for an alteration of the law, or for the fishing inquiry suggested by the Resolution. He was well acquainted with the relations of landlords and tenants in England and in Ireland, and he must confess he had hitherto failed to discover any warrant for the exceptional treatment of the Irish tenant which was so constantly asked for. There was no more untrue allegation than that which was constantly made, that all the improvements were due to the tenant. The circumstances of different estates varied in Ireland as much as they did in England; but it was no more the case in Ireland than it was here, that the tenant was the only person who made any improvement in the condition of the holdings. The prosperity of the agricultural class in Ireland had increased enormously during the last 20 or 30 years—indeed, ever since the time when Ireland recovered from the Famine it had been constantly increasing. Owing to the development of the railway system, and the facilities for transit, articles of produce fetched almost the same price in Ireland as they did in England; and inasmuch as nearly everything the tenant had to sell had increased vastly in value, the Irish landlord not unnaturally looked for some portion of the increased prosperity. There had, no doubt, been a rise in rents; but nothing like the increase which was justified by the enormous increase in the value of the products of the soil. He could not, he might add, see why Irishmen, if they found they could not get on in their own country, should not try their fortunes elsewhere, as was done by Englishmen and Scotchmen; and it seemed to him that what hon. Gentlemen opposite desired was to have the law so altered as that every Irish tenant and his sons might be enabled to live at home in the particular position in which they happened to have been brought up. The hon. Gentleman who had introduced the subject to the notice of the House had alluded to the expectations which had been formed of the Land Act when it was passed, and had observed that those expectations were not exaggerated. His own opinion was, however, that it was to the exaggerated nature of those expectations that the disappointment which was felt at the working of the Land Act was entirely due. The tenants then thought that the property in the soil of Ireland was about to be transferred to them, and that they were to have fixity of tenure. If that was to be so, it was well that the House should understand how the question really stood; for the freehold of property in Ireland could not be bought up, with the view of transforming the tenants into copyholders, without the outlay on the part of the State of a gigantic sum. For his own part, he failed to see what the Irish tenants had done to entitle them above the tenantry of all other countries to have exceptional privileges conferred upon them such as those proposed, which would end in making the landlord a mere rent-charger on his own estate. He, therefore, deprecated discussions such as that which had been raised that evening, although he should be very glad to see a real inquiry instituted into such cases as these which the hon. Gentleman had mentioned, if it could be limited in such a way as not to raise false expectations. He could not, however, think that any good, either to England or Ireland, could result from acceding to the Motion in its present shape.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

expressed his regret that the Motion should have assumed a somewhat aggressive form. He did not approve of the words in which the Motion was couched, because it implied that all the wrong was on one side. An inquiry ought to take place; but it should include both sides, in order to see how far this great Act, intended solely for the benefit of Ireland, did justice on the one hand to the tenant, and on the other to the landlord. If the Motion were so framed, he could not see how the Government could resist it, for this great and interesting experiment had been going on for 10 years. His own opinion was that it had worked more favourably than his hon. Friend who had introduced the subject seemed to suppose, and that it had been, on the whole, a successful experiment. He could have wished that the measure had been of a more radical character; but having regard to existing circumstances and vested rights, the experiment had probably gone as far as Parliament could have sanctioned at the time. The Act had been devised with great skill and ingenuity, and there was a testimony to its justice in the fact that both sides complained of it. But there were minor points of detail in which improvements might be made. He highly approved of the conciliatory tone which the Attorney General for Ireland had adopted in treating this question on a former occasion; but he was struck with the contrast between that and the tone of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who resisted all inquiry and all concession in a style that gave him but little hope of a disposition on the part of the Government to do justice to Ireland on the subject. This difference in two Members of the Government was a sufficient argument, he thought, for the inquiry asked.

MAJOR NOLAN

thought that one or two of the points mentioned by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) ought not to pass without comment. It had been said that Irishmen, if they were dissatisfied, might go to other parts of the world; but he knew, as he represented a very large body of Irishmen, how much they disliked enforced emigration, and it was no answer to their charges of injustice to tell them that they had a free field for emigration. No doubt, it was necessary for many of them, to go to America; but they were loth to go, and certainly the state of the law ought not to compel them to do so. A Commission, which would complete its inquiry in a short time, would be very useful; but he should object to a protracted inquiry, and could not in such a case consent to keeping the agitation on the Land Question in a state of suspended animation. The hon. Member had asked why Irish tenants should be treated better than other tenants. To that he replied that no exceptional advantages were sought for them; but only that they should hold the soil, after honestly paying for it, as was possible in other countries. In that respect an example was furnished by Russia, who was always able to point to the happy condition of the tenants under her land system; so that, if the Irish peasants were well treated, their case would not be unique. He did not mean to say that every tenant in Ireland should have fixity of tenure, because there were many men holding large grazing farms who had no right to it; but when he saw the large mass of the Irish nation holding their farms on sufferance, he should be glad to fix them there by some measure which would prevent capricious raising of rent and capricious eviction. His view was that a Commission ought to inquire how that might be done without injury to the property of the landlords? Such a Commission might effect good reforms, such as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington), who had proposed that damages for eviction should be so high as to virtually involve fixity of tenure; but it could not be reasonably expected that the great mass of the tenantry should continue to live on sufferance, and rest quietly without indulgence in any form of constitutional agitation. So far from the question remaining dormant, it would be constantly pressed upon the House till it was settled; and while the landlord had more than his proper powers, and while fixity of tenure was denied, the tenants would always be on the side of agitation and change. But if the demands of the Irish tenants on this question were satisfied, the great mass of them would in the course of time become as highly Conservative as their ancestors were agitators and revolutionists. As things were, although the tenants were willing to pay a good price for the land, confiscation, the penal laws, and the system of entail had hitherto excluded them, and had made the purchases of property in Ireland all but impossible. It was not remarkable, therefore, that he should wish for the appointment of a Commission. He held that a Commission of Inquiry would explain in a satisfactory manner many points that wanted to be cleared up, and would open the eyes of many of the hon. Gentlemen who sat on the opposite side of the House. If the House would deal with this measure in a proper spirit, it would be the means of changing the present system in Ireland and put it on a sounder footing.

MR. SULLIVAN

wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that the Motion before it was one for inquiry into the working of an Act passed some seven or eight years ago. What evidence, he asked, did they produce that there was a necessity for the amendment of that Act? He appealed to the Government to say whether from the passing of the Act of 1870, up to the present hour, there had not been a complaint in Ireland that the measure was in many radical features totally defective? The Irish tenants had been willing to co-operate with the fair-minded landlords in giving the Act of 1870 a full and fair trial; but never had the House been allowed to rest under any delusion as to what was the opinion of the tenantry of Ireland on that question. At the General Election of 1874, one of the questions put to the candidates in nearly all the rural constituencies of Ireland was this—"Will you vote for an amendment of the Land Act of 1870?" Two contradictory stories were brought forward against the advocates of a change in that measure in the House. The first was, that they were agitators who created that demand on the part of the Irish tenancy; and the next was, that they were the creatures of the agitation on that subject, that they made that demand because there was an agitation behind them in Ireland, and because they wished to make their seats secure at the next Election. Those two assertions refuted one another, and could not stand together. The real fact was that in Ireland there was a genuine belief that the Act of 1870 had utterly failed in many respects to carry out the intentions of its promoters. Since that measure became law, Bills dealing with the Land Question had been proposed by Members on both sides of the House. How were they to ascertain what there was faulty in their existing legislation, and where the remedy for it lay, except by inquiry? When serious complaints were made against the English Factory Acts, they instituted an inquiry into them by a Parliamentary Committee, or by a Commission. Why should not a similar course be adopted in regard to the Irish Land Act? When the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) brought in a Bill to benefit the tenantry of Ireland, the House voted it down, and would not listen to the proposal. When another hon. Member introduced a Bill of a much more moderate character, it was also voted down by the force of the majority. The House was asked that night by hon. Gentlemen on both sides to grant an inquiry into what might be necessary to be done, and then to do it. If they resisted that simple demand, must not the tenantry of Ireland fairly conclude that they refused to inquire into the justice of their complaints? The object of this Motion was to institute an inquiry not into the nature of the tenants' demands, but into the partial success, or partial failure, of the Land Act of 1870. He deprecated the carrying of this debate into any other direction than that. English land tenure was an exceptional tenure in Europe, and the traditional land tenure in Irish minds was the most prevalent land tenure in Europe. It was by the exceptional development of manufacturing industry that England herself had been saved from a great explosion on this subject. He had been a tenant-right agitator in his own humble way. He had stood on many tenant-right platforms in Ireland. He never heard put forward in Ireland, on any tenant-right platform, a single demand that did not cordially recognize not only all the existing rights of the landlord, but his fair share in the increase in the value of land. Go into the Landed Estates Court to-morrow, and see whether the capitalized sum representing landed property in Ireland was less than it was before 1870. That was the test. Tried by that test, all the prophecies of evil, all the frightful bugbears that were raised to terrify English landlords in the debates of 1869 and 1870 had been scattered, and proof had been established in the Landed Estates Court that the Land Act of 1870 had raised the value of land for the benefit of the landlords of Ireland. He wished the House to consider, not the conduct of Irish landlords, not the conduct of Irish tenants; but whether they would do to and in Ireland, as they did to and in England, when they wished to ascertain whether a grand experiment of political or social legislation had or had not answered its purpose?

MR. A. MOORE

said, he thought they should all feel much indebted to his hon. Friend for the admirable manner in which he had brought forward his Motion. It was quite evident that the Land Laws as they stood at present were not in a satisfactory state. They had abundant evidence to show that wanton, harsh, and capricious evictions were still possible—nay, actually occurred; and that the checks devised by the Land Act were wholly inefficient. There was nothing to prevent a landlord from demanding an exorbitant rent and evicting his tenant summarily for non-payment, though he might have spent years of toil and the earnings of a lifetime in bringing his land to its present condition. He followed his hon. Friend in thinking it was time to enforce practically, and beyond all question, the two great objects of the Land Act, which were still evaded. These two objects were—to guard against capricious eviction, and to protect the improvements of the tenants. Neither of these objects could be firmly secured until some satisfactory means were discovered of arranging rent. He himself had introduced a Bill to provide for the settlement of rent by arbitration, and to restrain cases of capricious or harsh eviction summarily, and he held that it was in some such way as this they might most successfully approach the Land Question. He would prefer half a measure now, than a whole one when the people had fled the land, and there was no longer anyone to evict. Such a measure as this could, he believed, be opposed by no well-meaning landlord anxious for the welfare of his country. What they asked for now was inquiry. It was too late in the Session to hope to pass any measure into law, but they thought inquiry the next best thing to legislation. Even Mr. Buckley wished for a just and impartial inquiry, and said in a letter that his rentals would compare favourably, as far as the interests of the tenants were concerned, with either his (Mr. Moore's) or any of his neighbours'. He accepted Mr. Buckley's challenge, fearless as to the result, and therefore supported the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Longford.

MR. BRUEN

said, that as he knew the accusations were groundless with reference to the owners of Irish land as a body, he would not fear as an Irish owner of land to face any inquiry that could be held by the House into their conduct, provided that inquiry was conducted in an impartial manner. But he felt that he stood there not merely as an owner of land, but as a Member of the Imperial Parliament, and that he was bound to consider the question not merely in the interests of owners of land, but also in the interests of the whole country. Viewing the matter in that light, he asked what would be the object of the inquiry, and what would be the result? It was manifest, from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), what the objects of the inquiry would be; and he must say, considering those objects, that he did not see the chance of any good resulting from the inquiry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated, what had been endorsed by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, that what was wanted was fixity of tenure and fixity of rent.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, he had disclaimed the idea of fixity of rent.

MR. BRUEN

At all events, the landlord should not fix the rent. That notion was very far removed from the idea which the House had of what belonged to the ownership of land. It had been said that the landlords of Ireland stood up for high prerogative. They had never done so. What they asked for was the rights given them at Common Law, and that what was held to be the property of landlords throughout the Kingdom should be theirs. When he looked at the different position taken up by those who advocated this inquiry, he could not think there was room for a settlement of the claims of the two parties concerned. The hope he had entertained of such a settlement had been entirely dispelled by the speeches he had heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite. The proposal before the House must be looked upon as a continuation of the agitation which had been carried on for some years for depriving the landlords of Ireland of the possession of their land. The broad question for the House to consider was whether they would take a step in that direction by the appointment of the Commission asked for. As a landowner, he might shut his eyes to the danger, and say—"Let us have an inquiry," conscious that the landlords of Ireland had nothing to be ashamed of. He could not think that a few instances of oppression, even if bonâ fide, could justify the accusation brought against the landowners of Ireland. Feeling that this inquiry would not tend in the direction of peace, he must oppose it.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, he had heard with pleasure, in the course of the debate, a suggestion of compromise in regard to the Irish Land Question from an Irish Member sitting on the Conservative side of the House. He hoped that, in the course of the discussion which must follow, it would be found that the spirit of compromise and conciliation had largely spread among those who opposed the Irish Land Bill before it became an Act of Parliament. The supporters of the Motion before the House undoubtedly wished to prevent the landlords in Ireland from changing the rents of their tenants-at-will; but they only desired to do this within certain limits which they thought reasonable, and which they believed would not interfere with freedom of contract between landlords and tenants. The object of the Land Act was to prevent landlords raising their rents beyond reasonable limits, and all that was now wanted was to carry out that principle in its entirety. It was part and parcel of the law of the land, and he did not think it reasonable to describe as revolutionary the speeches of his hon. Friends the Members for Galway and Louth, who asked that the letter of the law should be observed. The Land Act of 1870 laid down lines on which justice might be done alike to the landlords and tenants; and he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Longford had done wisely in so framing his proposal as that its only effect could be to widen and lengthen those lines.

Mr. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, he was somewhat disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen); because, although he and his Colleague had the reputation of being among the best landlords in the country, he should have thought the hon. Member would have supported a Motion which would have the effect of restraining somewhat the power of landlords who were not disposed to act with equal fairness. The only intention of his hon. Friend who had brought forward this Motion was to prevent capricious evictions, and to put an end to the notices to quit which fell like snowflakes upon the people of Ireland. The Attorney General for Ireland had challenged hon. Members from Ireland to move for an inquiry into the working of the Land Act. Now that they did so, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman venture to oppose them? The case for an inquiry appeared to him unanswerable, because in three years before the passing of the Land Act, there had been in Ireland 4,253 ejectments at one sessions against tenants; while in the three years after the passing of the Act, there had been 5,641, showing an increase of 50 per cent after the Land Bill had passed, though the Act was passed to prevent that very thing. Such a fact rendered an inquiry necessary. There would be an opportunity, by granting this inquiry, of having this question settled by enabling the House to decide whether the Act of 1870 had failed or not. He thought, however, the Motion would be improved by the omission of all the words after "capricious evictions," and he begged to move an Amendment to that effect.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words "by it" to the end of the Question.—(Mr. M'Carthy Downing.)

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

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he thought the debate had wandered very much from the point at issue, and he did not see what the question of the Land Laws of France, or any other country, had to do with the matter. He wished to support the Resolution in its amended form, as proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing), which he thought was an exceptionally harmless one. In the first place, the Land Act of 1870 was in a sense the most revolutionary Act ever passed in this generation, for it dealt with all the conceivable notions as to the rights of property in a most extraordinary manner. He, however, did not pretend to pronounce an opinion as to whether it was a good or a bad revolution. It was most interesting to know how it worked; and therefore he thought it would be a good thing to have a Commission or Committee, which would command the confidence of both landlords and tenants, to see how it had worked. The Land Act of 1870 professed to be a settlement of the Land Question; but, as a matter of fact, it was notorious that it was not so. The Land Question in Ireland occupied, at the present moment, a very prominent position; and, although the agitation on the question had not that ferocious aspect it formerly presented, still the proportions of it were as great now as ever they were. He did not believe any hon. Member would venture to deny that, and he asked if anyone could get up in his place and say that tenant-right did not now turn Elections in the North of Ireland? Then, there was another reason why a Committee should be appointed. The Government the Session before last granted an inquiry into the Bright Clauses of the Land Act, and the result of that Committee was, that the Bright Clauses were found to be practically inoperative; and yet those clauses were said to be the most important part of the Act. It would be, therefore, fair to assume by analogy, that some other parts of the Act were inoperative, and it would be well to inquire into the whole matter. Believing, as he did, that the Resolution was in accordance with the views, not only of the Irish tenants, but of Irish landlords, as represented by several hon. Members, he should not feel justified, as an English Member, in refusing his support.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that his noble Friend who had just spoken had given utterance to a sentiment in which he entirely concurred. The noble Lord described the Land Act of 1870 as a revolutionary measure, though he declined, with commendable caution, to give any opinion as to whether the measure was a good one or a bad one. He (Mr. J. Lowther), however, should not attempt to keep any veil over his opinions, and he had never felt it consistent with his duty to simulate any veneration for that Act, or to conceal the fact that neither he or his Colleagues were in any way responsible for that Act of Parliament. Reference had been made by the hon. Member who introduced this Motion, to the fact that he (Mr. J. Lowther) did not take any part in introducing that Act, and that he had formed one of those who had felt it to be their duty to protest against the second reading of the Bill. He had never regretted having taken that course; and, if the same circumstances arose again, he should do the same. He could assure the hon. Gentleman who introduced this Motion, in such courteous and considerate terms, that he did not shrink from any vote he had given on the Land Question; and he would not change any vote he had ever given, even if an opportunity was afforded him for so doing. He did not consider, as some hon. Members appeared to do, that it was the duty of an official to immediately recant the opinions he had entertained previous to taking Office, and to speak with bated breath, or, in a species of official jargon, to express great veneration and regard for the actions of his Predecessors; but having fully repudiated all responsibility for, and sympathy with, the Act of 1870, he wished to observe that it by no means followed that he was not as anxious to preserve that Act in its integrity as, indeed, any hon. Member in the House. He would mention one reason why the Act should not be removed from the Statute Book, and it was one which commended itself especially to his mind. It was, that under this Act had grown up vested interests which he felt himself bound to regard; and the vested interests of tenant-farmers should be as much an object of solicitude to Conservatives as the vested interests of anyone else. The Act of 1870 having passed both Houses of Parliament, and received the Royal Assent, he could not make himself a party to any scheme for depriving any person of any vested interest acquired under that Statute, whatever his opinion of it might be. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion gave what professed to be instances calculated to induce the House to re-open the Land Question in Ireland. Several hon. Gentlemen had spoken as if this inquiry could be held without opening any great question, and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had said he could not have his hands tied in the matter during the sitting of any Commission; but would hold himself at liberty to ignore its very existence, and to proceed with Bills and Motions all the same. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had given some instances which, to his mind, justified an inquiry; but with regard to these instances, the hon. Gentleman was so studiously vague that it would be impossible to follow up the clues he gave. But the House had been told that there were several instances of grievous wrong, and three in particular, in one of which the estate in question turned out to be only 50 acres in extent. [Major NOLAN: I said the rental was £50.] He was obliged for this correction, which showed that he (Mr. J. Lowther) had understated his case against the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and that the estate in question was probably of even smaller extent that he had supposed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman next gave a case in his own county with which he was, no doubt, well acquainted; but which he (Mr. J. Lowther) did not think it necessary to follow up, as it failed in any way to prove his case. The next case with which the hon. and gallant Member dealt was one which had already formed the subject of debate in that House—namely, that of the Galtee estates. He (Mr. J. Lowther) had said on a recent occasion that the House ought to regard with considerable leniency any shortcomings on the part of those who had been, as it were, pitchforked into the position of landowners without being fitted for the position by previous education. In his (Mr. J. Lowther's) opinion, Mr. Buckley was not in any way deserving of the censure that had been passed upon him by several hon. Gentlemen. They had omitted to consider his conduct with that leniency which the case deserved. He ventured to think that the case of Mr. Buckley was not well chosen by the hon. and gallant Member, because Mr. Buckley—whom he believed to be a most ill-used person—was an instance of the carpet-bag element. Mr. Buckley took possession of the land which he bought in the open market, and endeavoured to utilize it in much the same way as he would have done with railway shares or foreign stocks, or property of any other kind. That gentleman was, he thought, an instance of what was to be expected if land were as easily disposable as many of the English political friends of the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think desirable. Mr. Buckley had been unfairly singled out for a great amount of unnecessary criticism, in his opinion; although he was far from saying that the class of proprietors of land, of which he was a type, were the best that could be provided for Ireland. He was not disposed himself to believe very much in Free Trade in anything; but he thought to enable land to be hawked and handed about, with a mere regard to its market value, would be a very bad state of affairs to introduce into any country. Those hon. Gentlemen, who appeared to have so great a regard for the means of an easy acquisition of land, would do well to reflect upon this fact—that it was not the old proprietors of land in Ireland who had given the cause of offence which had been so readily taken hold of; but, in almost every instance, it was the gentlemen from a distance—the examples of Free Trade in land—who had brought discredit, if such had been brought, upon the class of landlords in Ireland. That should be a warning to those gentlemen who advocated the removal of reasonable and just impediments to a promiscuous transfer of land. The hon. and gallant Member had spoken of fixity of tenure, and appeared to think that, though it was not very desirable in the case of large holdings, it was in the case of small farms.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, that what he stated was, that he might forego it in the case of large grass farms.

MR. J. LOWTHER

observed, that he was not for the moment describing the state of cultivation in which the farms might be, but only that he understood the hon. and gallant Member to wish to exempt large farms from the operation of fixity of tenure, and to make it apply to small holdings only. With regard to the small holder, as he had before said, he was not prepared to advocate any violent disturbance with the existing state of affairs; but he was at a loss to understand why hon. Gentlemen should come down to that House night after night, and describe a state of things which they believed to exist amongst the tenant-farmers of Ireland—a state of affairs which certainly would reduce the so-called farmers to beggary—and suggest the remedy they did for it. What was the remedy suggested by them? He was not referring to any past debate in particular, but to the general tenour of the discussions in the House, to the effect that the occupying classes in Ireland were in a state of almost penury. A description had been given not long ago in which the tenants were said to be entirely dependent for their daily bread upon the produce of the soil; which, through a bad season or other causes, might not be available at the moment. The House was told that they had no other source of livelihood, and that their farms were not sufficient to enable them to live comfortably. It was naturally to be expected that hon. Gentlemen would ask Parliament for some remedy for that state of affairs—some remedy which would hold out a prospect of terminating it. It had always been said by economists that the great object of legislation with regard to land was to increase its capacity for producing food for the people. Bearing that in mind, it was naturally to be expected that legislation would have been demanded, with a view to the consolidation of farms, and the conversion of the small occupiers who, as such, were unable to exist, into daily labourers, or else to hold out to them a prosperous career in other climes. The remedy proposed was of an exactly opposite character; it was simply to rivet the occupying tenants to the soil, and perpetuate a state of affairs which their advocates described as productive of misery to themselves and the country. A more illogical deduction than that he never heard. These hon. Members—presuming that after reflection they still entertained these opinions—were bound to come down to the House and propose some scheme, or suggest some remedy, for those evils of which they complained. But by asking the House to establish fixity of tenure, the evils of which they complained would be stereotyped instead of removed. As hon. Gentlemen opposite—who had, no doubt, often argued the case over to themselves—must know, what was required was some means, without violence and without injustice, and, if possible, with the consent of all concerned, of consolidating farms and removing a vast number of superfluous fences and tumble-down buildings, and erecting substantial holdings. No one would wish to secure such a result without being sure that scrupulous justice was meted out to all concerned, and that the feelings, and even the prejudices, of the persons interested were in every way regarded. That was the sort of Utopia which they might picture in Ireland. It had been said that there were no means of livelihood open to the tenant-farmer in Ireland if he ceased to occupy land; that there was no such thing as daily labour in Ireland. If that were the case, he much regretted it; but he knew that so consistently was that dinned into the ears of the tenants, that there was great difficulty in inducing any person who had once been an occupier of land, however small its area, to partake in what was called by some in this country the dignity of labour. It appeared to him that some hon. Gentlemen opposite would encourage tenant-farmers in Ireland to think labour a degradation. But to say that a man who was in the condition in which the bulk of the tenantry on the Galtee estate were situated—that of almost starvation—would degrade himself by earning £1 per week, he could not understand. The Amendment which was proposed by his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) in no way affected his opinion of this Motion. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had said that if the words which the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) suggested should be eliminated, were omitted from the Motion, it would express an opinion which would be accepted by the House. But he (Mr. J. Lowther) failed to see how the omission of those words would affect the Motion. The main objection to the Motion was that it would encourage, in the minds of the tenantry of Ireland, the notion that fresh legislation was intended. It would carry on that mischievous agitation which it was the ostensible object of the Irish Land Act finally to quell. They were not favoured that night with the presence and assistance of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who could be held responsible for that Act. But in the absence of its legitimate defenders, he must ask the House not to re-open an agitation which could not fail to be most prejudicial to Ireland.

MR. BUTT

said, that in the very short time which he intended to occupy the House, he should confine himself entirely to the Resolution. Perhaps he might depart from that one moment, while he ventured to corroborate and explain, as a matter of which he had professional knowledge, a statement made by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington). It was a fact proved beyond all doubt in a Court of Justice, that the landlord who had been referred to by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. King-Harman) let his farms in this way. He let them at double the rent he intended to ask; but gave notice that if rent were paid on the gale-day, he would accept half. That did not remain a dead letter, for every tenant was in the power of his landlord who did not pay on the day named, and every tenant in the power of his landlord on that estate—and it was a large one—was charged double rent; and it was proved that if any dispute arose, or the tenant quarrelled with his landlord about another matter, he was sued, and double rent exacted from him. The learned Judge who tried the case commented very strongly on such conduct, and said that he had never seen such a covenant in an Irish lease. He (Mr. Butt) had seen such a covenant in many Irish leases, though it was not intended to be enforced, but only to keep tenants under the power of their landlords. He did not complain of the boldness and frankness with which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had stated his opinions; but he did expect him to follow them up by saying, as he did say, that the rights which had grown up under the Land Act were entitled to the same solemn respect as any others by law established. Upon that ground it was that he thought the right hon. Gentleman was logically bound to vote for the present Motion. Let him ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the dispute between them? No one could deny that the Act gave to the tenant the improvements formed by his own industry. In 1852, when the late Lord Derby was Prime Minister, he introduced a measure in which was recognized the property of the tenant in all improvements of the soil. He regretted that Lord Derby was prevented from giving the Irish the benefit of that Act; but, nevertheless, the property of the tenant in his improvements was then solemnly recognized. After a lapse of 18 years the principle was sanctioned by law. The allegation now brought forward was that that property was interfered with by the landlord increasing the rent arbitrarily, and that in the same ratio as the value of the soil was increased by the labour of the tenant. If he did not describe that as robbery, he must call it a violation of the rights of property as given by law to the tenant. Their allegation was that that occurred every day in Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman was really persuaded that these were vested rights, why did he not join them in asking for this inquiry? The case of the Galtee estates had not been brought before the House to parade the miserable condition of the tenantry thereon; but to show that tenants who had created the whole value of their farms had been deprived of the results of their labour. When the tenants had expended a large amount of money their rent was raised, notwithstanding the increased value of the holding being entirely due to the tenants' expenditure. How Mr. Buckley had acted was immaterial, except to prove that, under the existing law, he was able to charge the tenant for improvements to the soil, which never would have existed but for the tenant's expenditure. Was not that a violation of the vested rights secured by the Land Act? Yet tenants were bound to submit, because the provisions of the Land Act were not sufficient to protect them. Some time ago, when he was taking a more active part on public questions than at present, Mr. Edward O'Brien had clearly shown, in a letter addressed to him, that the weak point of the Act was that landlords, by asking for small increases of rent from time to time, were able virtually to rob their tenants. Of that he had himself seen ample proof. The landlord would raise the rent 2s. 6d. an-acre—for that the tenant could not go to law and obtain compensation, and so it went on. Lord Carlingford, in reply to Mr. O'Brien, admitted that that evil existed; but thought it was not of so extensive a character as Mr. O'Brien supposed. The House had some reason to complain; and for his part he regretted that some of the hon. Gentlemen, who shared with Lord Carling-ford the responsibility of the Land Act, were not in their places that night listening to the complaint of the Irish people, that their rights were not sufficiently protected by that Act. This had nothing do do with the question of fixity of tenure, or with any of the wild expressions of opinion that might have been uttered. All that was asked for was that the House should consider whether an Act passed for the purpose of protecting tenants against the evils which previously existed under the system of landholding in Ireland had, or had not, succeeded in effecting its object? and this, he thought, a perfectly fair demand to be made. Did those who opposed the Motion of his hon. Friend wish him to repeat the history of the merciless evictions of tenants which had made the name of an Irish landlord a by-word in Europe; or to recall the words in which the practice to which he was referring—and under the operation of which evicted tenants had died in the ditches—had been denounced in the public Press, from The Times downwards. He could not but think it strange that there should be any objection in the minds of the present Government to appoint a Commission, nominated by themselves, for the purpose of inquiring into the working of an Act passed by their Predecessors in Office, in despite of their own strenuous opposition. Furthermore, he could see no reason why any other than the class of bad landlords could object to the proposed inquiry. If the inquiry was made, it would redound to the credit of the good landlords, and would also induce in the minds of the Irish people that they might look to the House of Commons for justice—so turning them from the wild counsels which were constantly offered to, and sometimes accepted by, them. He would suggest, in order to carry out the views which he held, that the proposed Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) should be slightly modified, and that there should be omitted from the Resolution all the words after the words "upon him by it." This would confine the matter to a simple inquiry without committing the House to any expression of opinion whatever. The House would not refuse an inquiry if it was shown to them that under an existing law certain tenants had the power to filch away the rights, or any part of the rights of the landlords; was it not equally just and reasonable for the tenants to ask an inquiry as to the truth of their allegation, that the landlords were filching away from them rights which had been vested in them by an Act of Parliament? He asked the House to act upon the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that the rights of the tenants were entitled to respect equally with those of the landlords.

MR. COGAN

wished briefly to state the grounds on which he intended to vote for the Motion. Many speakers on the opposite side had confined themselves to answering the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) and the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), instead of addressing themselves to the real question before the House, which had been brought forward in a speech of great ability and moderation. He saw nothing in the Motion to raise the question of fixity of tenure or valuation of rents; because neither of those benefits were proposed to be conferred upon tenants by the Irish Land Bill, which afterwards became an Act of Parliament. He had heard with regret the speech of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen); because his opinions on questions of this kind were, as a rule, entitled to great weight by reason of his high character, and the fact that he was well-known to be a good landlord. It was as much in the interest of the landlords—and particularly of landlords like the hon. Gentleman—as of the tenants, that this inquiry should take place, and he was therefore surprised to hear his hon. Friend shrinking from it. A fair inquiry would, in his opinion, show that the Irish Land Act had conferred great and inestimable benefits upon the Irish people; but that it was capable of improvement in many of its details, alike in the interest of the landlord and the tenant class. He thought an inquiry, such as was proposed, would put down agitation on the Land Question, and that the Government, by refusing to grant such inquiry, would be responsible for any agitation that might arise hereafter.

MR. BROGDEN

said, he should not have taken any part in the debate, but for the fact that he stood in a somewhat peculiar position in reference to the Galtee estate, which had been mentioned in the course of the debate. He was for many years part-owner with Mr. Buckley of the property, and he could say positively that during that time the tenants were as happy and prosperous as any tenants in Ireland. He did not mean to say that he would defend everything that Mr. Buckley had done, because many men of high principle had been driven into obstinate and possibly mistaken courses by attacks upon them which no reason could justify; but he was sure Mr. Buckley would support an inquiry such as was asked, because he believed it would tend to the pacification of the tenants and the consequent good of the whole country. If the inquiry was granted, he felt sure that Mr. Buckley would be happy to afford all the information in his power with regard to his own estate; and he also felt equally sure that while the Land Act had proved advantageous to the tenants, it could be shown that in several points of detail it was capable of improvement. It was a pity that the real short-comings of the Act had not been allowed to be considered on their own merits, but had been mixed up with a great deal of personal matter which had, to a great extent, obscured the judgment of those by whom the matter was considered. In conclusion, he could not help expressing a hope that on reflection the Chief Secretary for Ireland would think he had used too strong language in describing Mr. Buckley as a carpet-bagger, who was pitch-forked into the position of a landlord without previous experience.

MR. ERRINGTON

said, he was willing to accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing), with the modifications suggested by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt).

Question, put, and negatived.

Main Question, as amended, put.

The House divided:— Ayes 67; Noes 134: Majority 67.—(Div. List, No. 202.)