Commons Sitting of 20 March 1878

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—William Stephen Gore Langton, esquire, for the Mid Division of the County of Somerset.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Poor Law Guardians, &c, nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [March 19] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee— Resolutions [March 19] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered —First Reading —Consolidated Fund (No. 2)*.
Second Reading—Tenants Improvements (Ireland) [13], put off; Money Laws (Ireland) [56], debate adjourned.
Committee —Report —Threshing Machines * [97].

TENANTS IMPROVEMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 13.]
(Mr. Patrick Martin, Major Nolan, Mr. O'C'lery, Mr. Fay.)
TENANTS IMPROVEMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 13.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR P. MARTIN,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to amend the laws relating to small tenements and fixtures in towns in Ireland, and thus give encouragement to tenants to build and improve their houses in towns and villages, by granting to them compensation when the holdings were under £50, after the same rate as enacted by the Legislature in the Land Act of 1870. By the Bill it was provided that the right to compensate should be subject to the limitations and restrictions imposed by the Act of 1870—namely, that improvements entitling the tenant to claim compensation should be permanent improvements of the landlord's estate, the period during which the tenant had enjoyed them being held to diminish the rate of compensation; while for improvements effected under contract, and where the tenant had derived certain benefits, such as an abatement of rent, the claim should be barred. The Bill also proposed to amend the law with reference to fixtures, and to assimilate it to that of England, conferring on the tenant the same right to fixtures and the same facilities for their removal as was conferred on English tenants by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875. He regretted that the 53rd section of that Act was not extended to Ireland, and in order to remedy the grievance in Ireland, he had in Clause 4 of the Bill adopted the very words of Section 53 of the English Act. He did not propose to enter on any general discussion of the law of Ireland with respect to landlord and tenant. He only claimed that the Irish tenants in the small towns and villages should be entitled to that compensation which, on every principle of
  1674
  common honesty and justice, they ought to reserve for bona fide improvements, adding to the value of the landlord's estate. As to the history of this question, he found that as far back as 1852, in a Bill of the late Mr. Napier, afterwards Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and then Attorney General for Ireland, the right of the tenant to compensation for such improvements as those with which he now proposed to deal had been recognized, and the same principle was conceded by successive Governments from both sides of the House. This being so, he was surprised, for the first time, to find that only the day before yesterday that Notice of opposition had been given to his Bill. There was no contest during the passage of the Act of 1870 on the principle of the agricultural tenants' right to compensation for improvements, and he asked on what principle could the same right be refused to the tenants of holdings in the small towns and villages, whose energy in making these improvements was especially manifested in the North of Ireland. There was nothing better marked than the fact that the Ulster tenant-right custom was conferred on the owners of town plots in many of the small towns and villages— the right possessed by the tenants of the agricultural holdings—and he asked whether it was right that they should be excluded by the 1st section of the Act of 1870 from the legislation thereby given to that custom? The hon. Member for Limerick had stated that the custom was not confined to holdings which were agricultural or pastoral in their character; it was perchance better marked in the cases of holdings in many of the Ulster towns in which the largest sums of money had been expended on the estates. In Mr. Donnell's book it was said that this custom was over and over again proved by unimpeachable witnesses to exist in these towns in Ulster. Mr. Donnell said—
  "It is from this very fact that this expenditure, first made by the tenant, is recognized by the landlord, that we find a hotter class of habitations in the villages and rural districts of Ulster than we see in the Southern and Western parts of Ireland."
  It had been shown over and over again in the evidence of Poor Law Inspectors and others, that the expenditure of the tenants was not confined to the agricultural holdings, but that it was also made on the holdings in the different

  1675
  towns and villages. He could give, from his own experience, many cases of severe hardship where those improvements had been made; but he preferred to deal with the facts upon the authority of the Reports presented to that House and upon the authority of gentlemen of position who had no interest in the matter. He would, therefore, refer to the working of the system adopted on Lord Portsmouth's estates at Enniscorthy, as described in the report of Mr. Robinson in the year 1870. It was conceded that in 1822 Enniscorthy was little better than a village of mud hovels, enjoying no particular advantages as to markets or otherwise; but when Mr. Robinson's report was presented, it was a town with well-slated houses and good markets, and in as flourishing a condition as any similarly-sized town in Ireland. The agent told Mr. Robinson that before he took the management, the rule had unfortunately been not to recognize the right of the tenants to buildings they put up, and when the short leases expired, the tenants who had built, or their representatives, were not always regarded as having claims to new leases. But the rule was altered. All buildings on those town plots were regarded as the property of the tenants on the expiration of leases, and new leases were granted. It was the observance of this rule that had created the change he had described in Enniscorthy. With this striking instance before the House, could it be said that the Irish tenants lacked energy? Probably no part of Ireland had participated more largely in the disturbances that had characterized the close of the last century. It was from thence that the first symptoms of serious disaffection had spread, and yet the result of the simple change made by Lord Portsmouth had been what he had just described. He contended, therefore, that it could not be said that tenants in Ireland would not improve their holdings if they had sufficient security for so doing; and further, that other towns and villages in that country would be improved as Enniscorthy had been if that security were afforded them. Such a security would bring about a new Ireland. The Report of the Irish Church Commissioners showed how much tenants desired to improve their properties, and he trusted that during the debate on this Bill they would not hoar that Irish tenants were
  1676
  not inclined to make improvements; for only let there be a just system of the character proposed established, a certainty that tenants would have security for all bond fide improvements made by their capital and skill, and there would be a vast change in the aspect of Ireland. Under this Bill no claim would be recognized if the improvements were not bond fide, and added to the letting value of the landlord's estate. It was only the day before yesterday that an objection to the Bill was entered in the Notice Book. It might, perhaps, be said that there was no necessity for this Bill in Ireland, and also that it was an exceptional measure. What, however, had the House been doing for years past, but to agree to exceptional legislation in regard to the land of Ireland; and there was no finality to that question. He almost felt ashamed to be obliged to answer objections to the Bill on the ground that it was an exceptional one. One half of the land in Ireland was in the hands of absentee proprietors—that was to say, landlords who were not habitual residents in Ireland. The evils of that system were shown in the Report of the Devon Commission, and they existed at that moment. But these were not the case of absentee proprietors only. Property was changing hands in that country, and it got into the hands of small proprietors, who bought it on speculation and for gain, and the condition of Ireland showed what was the result. Let them look at the Mitchelstown case, and there were others of the same sort. Investments of English capital in land in Ireland had been far from a boon to the people of that country. He could say that he represented a county in which there were many landed proprietors, between whom and their tenants the very best feelings prevailed; but even in such cases there ought to be some legal protection given to the tenants— their improvements should not be left to the moral sanction of landlords. It was, however, to prevent cases of injustice that the Bill had been framed. He could state that there was a class of landlords in Ireland who did not deal fairly with their tenants; and why, he would ask, should tenants be left to the caprice and uncontrolled discretion of any landlord? That such landlords existed was notorious, and they had been referred to by the historian of The Eng-

  1677
  lish in Ireland, who, after a residence in Ireland, said that many of the landlords were aliens in blood and religion; they represented confiscation, and, from generation to generation, had shown an indifference to the welfare of the people, which would not have been tolerated for one moment in England or Scotland. Mr. Gladstone's Act was, perhaps, the only good measure which had been passed for more than 200 years. It had been called confiscation, but it took nothing to which landlords had any equitable or reasonable right. The selling value of the laud had not decreased since that Act; on the contrary, it had increased. He called upon the House not to reject this Bill, but rather to persevere in the course which had been so happily inaugurated by the right hon. Member for Greenwich; and, so acting, they might be assured, by the concession of just rights to the tenantry, a new Ireland would spring up in the towns and villages, and from being mere mud hovels, would have, like England, well - built, slated, and comfortable houses. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Patrick Martin.)
  MR. BRUEN,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he would not comment upon the motives of those who had promoted this Bill, as he did not desire to say anything personally offensive to any of them; but he confessed he was not a little surprised at the description which had been given of the Bill by a Gentleman of the ability and moderation of the hon. and learned Member who had introduced it. The Bill was practically of two clauses—one extended some provisions of the Act of 1870, and the other dealt with fixtures; the one might be said to be original, and the other not necessary. The Preamble of the Bill said that the tenants of agricultural and pastoral holdings could obtain compensation, and therefore some encouragement should be given to tenants to make improvements on town lands. At first sight, it seemed that the object might be gained by extending the 4th section of the Land Act of 1870, as that would appear to cover every holding in Ireland, and to give compensation to those
  1678
  who could claim under the provisions of he Act; but that Act excluded all improvements made to property in towns or villages, or, in other words, improvements of buildings merely. This Bill, of agreed to, would simply authorize an 3xtension of the Ulster custom to every holding in Ireland under £50, and it appeared to him that the promoters of the Bill had intended doing that covertly, and without any intimation that they intended to extend that custom to every holding in Ireland. The hon. and learned Member had told the House that there were landlords in Ireland who took every advantage of improvements made by their tenants; but the Land Act of 1870 vested the improvements in the tenants, and gave them compensation if disturbed, and that legislation had been supported by the landlords. He contended that the landlords of Ireland as a body acted with great justice towards their tenants. It was said that no less than £70,000,000 worth of property was transferred by the Land Act of 1870 from the landlords to their tenants, and the cases before the Courts showed that the landlords had not shown a desire to take advantage of their tenants. The cases of improvement of buildings in towns in Ireland were entirely different from improvements in the country. There was no doubt that tenants in the country had made many great improvements upon their holdings. There was no evidence to show that improvements had been made in towns and villages. No such proof had ever been offered to the House. No doubt Enniscorthy had been referred to; but the improvements there were attributable to very different causes than the peculiar relations between Lord Portsmouth and his tenantry. They were occasioned in no slight degree by the termination of the disturbances in 1822, which had devastated that part of Ireland, and the development of industry which followed the restoration of peace. People would not build houses on a tenure of a short and uncertain character, unless they received proper compensation before or after building; and when a tenant laid out money, he usually had the security of a long lease that he would gain the benefit of his investment. The fact that many towns did not improve was due to the fact that property in them was not valuable; it did not let well, there being

  1679
  no competition for it, as there was for a holding in the country, and the tenant was as much master of the situation in the town as the landlord was in the country. Therefore, the usual practice in a town was that the landlord made such improvements as were made, unless he gave the tenant a long lease, and on that account such a clause as that in this Bill would be most unjust in its operation. Existing arrangements had been made, with the mutual knowledge that the law gave the landlord the buildings as they stood on the lapse of the lease, and, therefore, no injustice was done. If this Bill were passed, a tenant would be able to set up a claim to which the landlord would have no answer, in the absence of a written agreement, which hitherto had not been necessary. To pass a clause of this kind would be as unjust as it would be to deprive the tenant in the country of the value of the improvement effected by him upon his landlord's property. The limit of £50 would cover nearly all the houses in the country towns of Ireland. The extension of tenant-right to all holdings in towns in Ireland over the value of £50 would practically involve something like a revolution, and he thought the House was hardly prepared to assent to it; for, though the Act of 1870 legalized a custom, it legalized it only where it existed; but this Bill would impose upon three-fourths of Ireland a custom which had not been acted upon. The effect could be realized by imagining the result if such a measure was applied to half-a-dozen English counties. Similar objections applied to the clause affecting fixtures, which, even if it would be useful, ran counter to the common understanding subject to the technical law on the subject. In these circumstances, he trusted that the Bill would be rejected. He would conclude by moving the rejection of the Bill.
  MR. KING-HARMANin seconding the Motion for the rejection of the Bill, said, the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin), stated that the object of the Bill was to encourage improvements in dwelling-houses in towns and villages throughout Ireland; and if it had been shown that it would act in such a way, he, for one, would have been glad to have given it his support. But from the examination which he had
  1680
  made of the Bill, he should say that it would have exactly the contrary effect. He could not for a moment imagine that any builder would lay out capital in erecting houses of which, if he found his tenants were not desirable people, he would have no power to turn them out. If this Ulster tenant-right Motion was established throughout the country, a landlord who had a tenant who became bankrupt often wished to get rid of him and could not do so. He maintained, therefore, that the passing of such a Bill as this would put an entire stop to speculative building throughout Ireland. The hon. and learned Member who introduced this Bill (Mr. P. Martin), spoke very strongly of the strong evils which were in past days inflicted upon tenants in Ireland; but all those injuries were inflicted upon the holders of land, and it had not at all been shown that holders of houses suffered from them. He maintained that it was in the interests of the tenants, as of the landlords, to improve the property. If the hon. and learned Member could show that the town tenantry in Ireland were oppressed and discouraged from laying out their money in improvements, he should vote for the Bill most heartily; but he regarded it as one of those Bills which were so frequently showered on the House without due consideration, and it was only wasting the time of the House to discuss it.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Bruen.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that a great deal of interest was taken in the Bill in Ireland, and whether it was a good measure or a bad one, it undoubtedly dealt with a large amount of property in Ireland, and would affect a large portion of the urban population; therefore, he hoped its discussion would not be deemed a waste of time. The Bill had not been introduced thoughtlessly, and he knew that it received large outside support. There seemed to be, to some extent, misunderstanding about its object. The intention of the measure was simply to extend the important clauses of the Land Act to the towns in Ireland, and more especially the small country towns. That was the

  1681
  governing idea of the Bill, and not the extension of the Ulster tenant-right custom to the whole of Ireland. He -was anxious to disclaim that compensation was to be given for disturbance. The only intention of the Bill was to give compensation for bond fide improvements which added to the letting value. He had reason to believe that the Bill had not been badly drafted, but hoped they would not go into that question to-day. It was a very common manoeuvre in the House of Commons to find fault with the drafting of a measure, even if its principle was a good one. That point, however, was not of much consequence, because all defects could be altered in Committee or upon Report being taken. He could assure the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen), that there were a great many people who thought when there was no provision in the contract, if improvements were made by the tenant he ought to get compensation for them. That was the whole question, and those who held that opinion were not unsupported in their views. Mr. Hancock, a great authority, went fully into this question in a paper which he read at the Statistical Society of Ireland in 1875, in which he pointed out that there was an ancient provision in the Scotch law, giving compensation to tenants for improvements, and that the want of a similar provision in the Irish law was well known. Mr. Hancock went on to state that the case had been met to some extent in England and Ireland by the Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Act of 1868, which provided that in case of doubtful title, the expenditure for improving property should be secured to the tenant; but that was limited to the single case of artizans and labourers' dwellings. The opinion of Mr. Hancock carried with it some authority, and this was strongly in favour of a change in the direction indicated by the Bill. It was probable that the promoters of the Bill had in their minds the position of the tenants in many of the small towns of Ireland. In these towns it was a common case to find that the landlords were timid and unenterprizing, not caring to make any outlay, although the risk might be small. That being so, any improvements must be made by the tenant, and this Bill was to secure the tenant, when he filled up the landlord's place by doing the duty which naturally should devolve
  1682
  upon the landlord. Supposing the tenant should wish to increase the value of the property, under the Bill he would be enabled to do so without having to consult the landlord, to consult a lawyer, and to draw up a document for the landlord. He might improve the holding, and when the time came for the landlord to take up the holding he would do so, repaying the tenant the increased value, which would be fixed by the Chairman of Sessions. In this way it was difficult to see what injury there would be to the landlord. Improvements in these small towns were easily inspected, and their value readily ascertained. A case had been put, from a landlord's point of view, where the owner of a terrace of houses might have the appearance of his property damaged and the value depreciated by the addition of a house, although the particular house might be improved. But in the small towns of Ireland there were very few such symmetrical rows of houses to be met with, and even such a case might be met by the legal notice which the landlord might have served. All that the Bill was intended to do was to meet those cases where the landlord would not interfere in any way, and to give the tenant a fair chance of recovering a portion of the money invested in his holding. Some exception had been taken to the clause in reference to fixtures; but, whatever might be the technical objections to the drawing up of the clause, it certainly could not be directed against the principle of the Bill. The fixture clause was a side issue, upon which the enlightened opinion of professional Gentlemen in the House of Commons was invited, and the promoters were quite willing to accept any emendation to that clause which would benefit the tenant, while not interfering with the just rights of the landlord. The security which was given under the Land Act for investments in land had a tendency to divert capital from houses, and corresponding security was necessary to restore the balance. As it was practically impossible to secure freehold lands in towns, they were all the more prejudiced by the want of security for tenants. If some security were introduced into the town holdings, and the difficulties for the transfer of house property removed, more money would be invested in the towns, and an increase in trade would follow, for busi-

  1683
  ness increased business, and competition did no harm.' The Bill would give to tenants in towns a greater hold upon their houses, would make them more independent in the assertion of municipal privileges, which would have a wholesome effect on the local management of the towns, and in that there was another strong argument in its favour.
  MR. MACARTNEYconsidered the 2nd clause of the Bill most objectionable. Everyone who knew anything about valuation in Ireland was aware that the agricultural value was much below the amount of the rent taken, and that in towns and holdings the actual value was very different from the rents taken. The estimated value of the holdings was not according to the rent, but according to the Government valuation, which varied from 20 to 50 per cent on the real value. With respect to the law of fixtures in Ireland, that was regulated by the Common Law, as in this country. The principle which this Bill sought to introduce was extraordinary, and if passed into law would inflict a great injustice on the owners of property in towns. He was one of those wished to see the Ulster custom carried out, but it was never intended to apply to towns. If they began by applying it to tenements of £50 and under, what was to prevent it being extended in a few years to any holding whatever? If hon. Members opposite wished to have this principle thoroughly discussed and inquired into, why did they not propose a Bill dealing with England and Scotland, as well as Ireland? He was sorry to hear the old charge of absenteeism made in the course of the debate. He denied that Irish landlords were more given to absenteeism than the English or Scotch landlords. Some of the best-managed estates in Ireland were held by English gentlemen, who had chosen gentlemen of high character to manage them. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had intimated that he had no objection to throw over portions of the Bill; but it would much facilitate the discussion of the measure, if he could point out those portions of the measure which he was willing to abandon.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he felt very great pleasure in supporting the Bill before the House, as he knew from experience it was a measure badly required in Ireland, to prevent the rapacious
  1684
  landlord from confiscating the property of the industrious tenant. He would repeat the specially industrious tenant; for in the case of improvements in country towns in Ireland, it was the very industrious tenant who made those improvements, and therefore these were the parties who required protection under the Bill before the House. When a landlord had land to let in the neighbourhood of a town, he generally got ten times more for the land than he would for any agricultural purposes. Then the tenant expended £200, £300, £400, or £500, as the case might be, in building and improving on that spot of ground. Was it not a monstrous state of things that in 30, 40, 50, or even 60 years, the owner of the ground could come in and confiscate the entire outlay of the tenant, without giving him or his successors is. compensation? If the town improved, the landlord might be entitled at the end of the term to an increased rent of his land; but it was a fearful state of things as it stood at present, that the landlord could confiscate all the property of the tenant. He might be met by hon. Members who would say there was no landlord would take advantage of the tenant by confiscating all the improvements. He admitted it was only the very bad landlord would do so, and he would further admit that the bad landlord was more the exception than the rule; but still there were bad landlords who committed those outrageous acts on tenants, and he knew landlords who did rob tenants out of their entire property. It was to prevent bad landlords from committing those outrages that this Bill was required, and to make them treat their tenants as the good landlords did. He did not mean for a moment, that because a tenant might live in a house in a city or a town for a considerable time at a low rent, that he should continue to do so; for if a man, or his father before him, expended his money in the erection of a house, it was quite right that he should have the benefit of that outlay; but what he meant was the spot of ground on which it was erected, and where the landlord never laid out 1s. in the improvements. He knew of a case in which a landlord would not grant a lease for a longer term than 21 years, and the consequence was that tenants would not lay out money on the improvement of their holdings, many of

  1685
  which wore mere hovels. If a landlord gave a tenant a fair and reasonable term a great improvement would take place in the holdings in many towns in Ireland. He had 30 or 40 tenants in one place, some of whom had leases, whilst others had none; but when he saw a disposition towards improvements he granted leases for 999 years, and the result was a great improvement in the houses. The Bill would injure no one; it would serve the tenant in possession, and benefit the small towns, and therefore he should support it in all its stages.
  MR. MULHOLLAND,in opposing the Bill, said: Although I share in the feeling of surprise expressed by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen), that any Member could be found to bring this Bill before the House, I do not think that it is altogether a matter for regret; for I think it desirable that it should be clearly understood to what extremes of legislation the Party from which it emanates are prepared to go. We have to come down here and meet almost weekly attacks directed against the very foundations of property in Ireland. Hitherto, these attacks have been generally directed against the land; but on this occasion, I think, for the first time, the war has been carried into towns, and the owners of house property are assailed. Now, I would wish to point out to the House the skilful manner in which this attack is conducted. The Bill brought in is not a Bill to declare straightforwardly what it professes to do, nor does it propose clauses to carry these principles directly into effect; but it is a Bill which suggests by its title the idea that it is dealing with interests analogous to the interests dealt with by the Land Act of 1870; and it still further suggests this idea by its adoption of some of the sections of that Act, although their proposed application is to something altogether dissimilar. The hon. Members who have brought this Bill forward knew well that they would not have had much chance of securing the attention of the House if they had brought in a Bill to compel the owners of ground rents in towns to purchase the houses that may have been built upon their land, or a Bill to make it the presumption that every house in a town had been created by the occupying tenant until the landlord had proved the contrary. Yet this is absolutely what this Bill proposes to do;
  1686
  and, as I have said, if hon. Members of the Liberal Party will only realize the nature of this proposal and learn what is the true tendency of these persistent revolutionary attacks upon the institutions of property, and upon, I may say, the foundations of society in Ireland, it will be a valuable result of the time occupied in discussing a proposal in itself too absurd to deserve serious discussion. Because I am satisfied that it is under a total misapprehension of the true facts that so many hon. Members opposite came down here on Wednesday afternoons—and, without having heard the discussion, or, perhaps, without having read the Bill, vote for the measures brought in by the Home Rule Party. Now, to show the utter absence of analogy between the interests touched by this Bill, and those comprehended under the legislation of 1870, I need only remind the House of the argument by which the Land Bill of that year was advocated by the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone). He said that he regretted the necessity of any interference with freedom of contract; but that there were, in his opinion, peculiar circumstances connected with the occupation and cultivation of land in Ireland, that justified peculiar legislation. He said he wished to interfere with freedom of contract as little as possible, and that he interfered with it in the case of small tenancies, only because, in the circumstances of Ireland, the tenant was not free; and he drew an emphatic distinction between special legislation as called for by distinctive circumstances peculiar to Ireland, and the demands for special legislation upon points in which the conditions of the two countries were similar. For instance, a demand for perpetuity of tenure, he said, was not an Irish land question, but a United Kingdom land question, and one not therefore to be discussed on a merely Irish Bill. Now, let us apply this principle to the present case. What is there in the case of Ireland that requires the question of property in town houses to be considered as an Irish question, and not a United Kingdom question? No one will assert that the supply of building land is so limited, or that the persons desirous of becoming tenants of building land are so numerous that they would not be free agents in a contract. But, if not, where is the ar-

  1687
  gument for special interference? I do not think it necessary to discuss what might really be the real question— whether, as a general principle, it would be desirable or not desirable to interfere with freedom of contract, with respect to building leases of town houses; because that question does not really technically come before us. The question raised by this Bill is this—is there anything in the circumstances of Ireland, with respect to town houses, so peculiar as to require exceptional legislation on that subject for that country analogous to the exceptional legislation of 1870 on the subject of land? For this purpose it is, I consider, quite sufficient if I show that the analogy suggested by the Preamble between the present Bill and the Land Act exists in no point whatever. From the Preamble one might suppose that it had been an inadvertent omission in the Land Act not to include town houses and the other holdings specified in this Bill; but, so far from that being the case, they were carefully and expressly excluded. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Greenwich devoted considerable time, when introducing the Bill, to explain that no claim would lie under it in respect of improvements, when the so-called improvement was not suitable to agricultural pursuits. He said—
  "If the tenant chooses to lay out his money in making additions to his holding, which do add to the letting value, but which are not suitable for the purposes of agriculture, the landlord is not to be bound to pay for such an improvement, because it does not come within the proper scope of the tenancy. A case which has been mentioned to me, for instance, is that of a farm abutting on the seashore, on which the tenant chose to build a bathing-house. It is very probable that this bathing-house may add to the letting value of the farm, but evidently the tenant ought not to be entitled to payment for it as an improvement. That, undoubtedly, is not a sort of improvement which will come within the meaning of this Bill."—[3 Hansard, excix. 373–4.]
  I think this is most important, as showing that what it is proposed to include in the present Bill was not omitted from the Act of 1870 accidentally; but was purposely and expressly excluded as being altogether outside of the scope and objects of the Act. In fact, the present Bill would not be an extension of the policy of the Act of 1870. It would be a complete reversal of it. The 2nd clause of the Preamble states that the enactments now proposed would
  1688
  encourage the improvement of dwelling-houses in towns and villages in Ireland. To my mind it would do exactly the reverse. In fact, if it were possible to imagine the enactment of so absurd a Bill, in a moment of insanity, I do not see how any houses would be built in Ireland. No landlord would willingly let land for building with a reversionary liability to purchase any building that might be created upon it, and no builder would build houses where the legal presumption would ever afterwards be, that the houses were the property of the occupying tenant and not of himself. And now, Sir, I come to the special enactments proposed; and I must say that they illustrate most clearly the inconvenience of the attempt to engraft a Bill applicable to the subject upon another Bill relating to objects totally dissimilar. The 4th section of the Land Act, which it is now proposed to apply to town houses, is a section which throughout is drawn with reference to agricultural holdings. The consequence is that if the Bill now before the House passed into law, and that section were declared to apply to town houses, we would be met throughout the entire section by difficulties and contradictions. In the first place, the improvements for which this clause legalizes the tenant's claim are defined to be—
  "Such improvements as are required for the suitable occupation of his holding, and its duo cultivation."
  Well, if the tenant of a town house were to bring an action against his landlord for the value of the holding, it, no doubt, might be argued that a town house was suitable for the occupation of his holding; but how about the "due cultivation thereof?" Again, the 4th clause of the Land Act requires that leases to evade claims for compensation, if made before the passing of the Act, must contain an express exclusion of such claims. Did anyone ever hear of a building lease which included such an express stipulation? Under that 4th section, a landlord may avoid claims for certain classes of improvements, by giving a lease for 31 years; but he cannot so evade the claims under this proposed Bill; because permanent buildings are expressly excluded from the benefits of that exception. Again, under the 4th section, any contract between

  1689
  landlord and tenant, whereby the tenant may be deprived of the right to claim for the value of the holdings he has erected, would be void both in law and equity. In this very strong clause there are excepted in the Land Act the very class of tenancies which it is now proposed to include, and the reason of these exceptions is obvious. So violent an interference with the freedom of contract was defended and carried on the ground that the tenant in Ireland, not being a free agent, might be forced to contract himself out of the right to be compensated for improvements necessary for the proper cultivation of the soil. But is there a shadow of basis for such a plea with respect to the case of a builder taking a lease of building land for the erection of town houses? Again, the 5th clause of the Land Act, which is indissolubly connected with the 4th clause, makes it the presumption, with certain exceptions, that all improvements have been made by the tenant. So much, Sir, for the 1st clause of this Bill, and it is really the only one that requires exposition. It contains the whole pith and marrow of the Bill. The others seem to have been copied from other Acts without much reference to their applicability. For instance, the 2nd clause provides that for the purposes of this Act, land shall be valued at the Government valuation; whereas the entire of the rest of the Bill refers to houses, and there has been no allusion whatever to land either in the Preamble or the clauses. I can only conjecture that as it is provided that this Bill is to be construed as one Act with the Land Act, this may be an attempt to introduce a clause applying the Government valuation to the original Act. If, Sir, this Bill had emanated from Members on this side of the House opposed to the principles of the Land Act of 1870, one might have suspected that it was a humourous attempt to discredit that Act by showing to what absurd lengths similar principles might be extended, and by dressing up such a burlesque of it as is now before the House. So far, I have alluded only to the case of dwelling-houses. It is only dwelling-houses that are alluded to in the Preamble of this Bill, and, no doubt, the case of dwelling-houses is the most important. But there are other buildings excepted from
  1690
  certain sections of the Act of 1870, which this Bill would now include within their provisions. The chief of these are —demesne lands, town parks, labourers' houses, cottage allotments, and temporary lettings. There is not one of these classes which was not excepted upon grounds of public advantage. It is often necessary to provide occupation for demesne lands during absence of the family, perhaps for health, perhaps during a minority; but no one would let them to a tenant if, by so doing, he became subject to this Act. He would take cattle in to graze. The increase of pasturage is spoken of frequently as a grievance; but such proposals as this would directly tend to increase it still further. Then, as to town parks, none of the arguments by which the Act of 1870 was advocated apply to them. A tenant deprived of them is not deprived of his house, or turned adrift into the world. His residence is in the neighbouring town, and he holds a field or so for accommodation. Often such land is rented by the butcher or cattle dealer of the town until it can be let for building. As for the disadvantage to public interest of throwing impediments in the way of giving labourers potato-gardens or any cottage allotments, they are too obvious to require comment. But, indeed, it is not only the gardens and allotments, but the cottages themselves, that would be brought under this Bill; and I suspect the first effect of it would be not only to deprive labourers of their potato-ground and gardens, but of the cottages themselves, for I hardly see who would supply them on such conditions. I hold, Sir, this Bill would, in every case, be most mischievous. It would lead to the gravest injustice, and to endless litigation. And, if the evils for which it professes to be a remedy do really exist, it would aggravate and intensify them a hundredfold.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERpointed out that the Act of 1870 applied confessedly merely to agricultural holdings, and therefore it did not include house property within its provisions. He had no wish to confiscate the property of either landlords or tenants; but he thought that the principle of tenant-right was even more applicable to house than to agricultural holdings. The Bill would very much encourage building in Ireland, where it was most desirable that

  1691
  better classes of houses for labourers should be erected. Those who had charge of this measure were perfectly ready to consider any objections that might be urged against its details, and to accept such Amendments of it in Committee as they thought would be likely to prove useful. By passing the Bill, the House would merely be assenting to the extension of the principle of tenant-right in Ireland which they had already approved in the Land Act of 1870.
  MR. MELDONsaid, his opinion was that the introduction of the Bill was mischievous. Introduced by Members who were thoroughly identified with the existing land agitation, there was great danger that the House and the people outside would be led to believe that the present measure was part and parcel of this agitation. Now, nothing could be farther from the truth. There was no analogy in principle between the present Bill and the Land Act of 1870, and nothing, in fact, could be more opposite than the two Bills. The Land Act was passed because, Ireland being an agricultural country, it was felt that exceptional legislation was necessary in respect to the holding of land, and its object was to place the tenantry throughout the country on something like an equality with the tenantry of the North, who were protected by the custom of Ulster tenant-right. Its main object was rather to check capricious eviction than to give compensation to the tenant. None of these considerations applied to the tenancy of houses in towns. House property in Ireland was very variable in value, and oftentimes it was greatly depressed. After the Land Act of 1870 the interest, not only of the tenants, but also of the landlords in agricultural holdings, increased in value very greatly; but, with respect to house property, no such result could be hoped for. In Dublin a large number of houses were unoccupied, and until to-day he had never heard it asserted there was any reason for legislation of the kind now proposed. The fact was that certainly in large towns the landlords were at the mercy of the tenants—the competition for agricultural holdings was very severe; whereas for houses the competition was amongst the landlords to get their houses let. What was really the object of the Bill? Why, it was to compel owners to pay for all improvements their tenants might wish
  1692
  to make. It was not called for by the tenant-farmers or any other class in Ireland, and he repudiated the idea that the Bill formed part of the programme of the present tenant-right agitation. Landlords were even anxious to give facilities for the letting of their houses on any terms, and there was no difficulty whatever in getting houses suitable for all classes of tenants in the towns of Ireland. It was an absurd and monstrous thing to say that at the end of a six or 12 months' tenancy, a landlord should be compelled to put his hand into his pocket and pay for improvements the tenant might have made in his time to add to his own comfort. The 1st clause of the Bill was perfectly senseless, inasmuch as it proposed to extend and legalize a custom which, practically, did not exist to houses in towns. The only foundation for the statement that tenant-right existed in respect of houses in towns was the tradition that such right existed in cases where the dwelling-houses were really appurtenant to the occupation of agricultural holdings; but, otherwise, there was no instance of the Ulster tenant-right being applied to house property, and he protested against the Bill being looked upon as being connected with the tenant-right agitation in Ireland. The details of the measure were as bad as its principle, inasmuch as it actually curtailed, instead of enlarging, the tenant's right to fixtures. The 1st clause was senseless, extending as it did, a custom which was non-existent; the 2nd was vicious in principle, inasmuch as if any legislation was required, it was rather in the opposite direction, tending to the relief of landlords rather than inflicting injury on them; but the clause as to fixtures was decidedly retrograde, and would in flict most serious mischief on the rights of tenants as they existed at present. Agricultural tenants, under the law as it now stood, had an absolute right to remove all fixtures either during their tenancies, or during a certain period after its determination, subject to only two restrictions—first, that they must not do "substantial" injury to the freehold; and, second, that they must not destroy the fixtures themselves. Now, the present Bill imposed very serious restrictions on those rights. Fixtures could not be removed unless all rent was paid and all covenants in lease fulfilled. The landlord was to have a right of pre-emp-

  1693
  tion, and certain notice must be served before removal, &c. Every tenant would be up in arms against such mischievous legislation. It certainly was most essential to encourage building improvements in the vicinage of towns; but the provisions of the Bill were not the form in which that ought to be done. Encouragement should be given for the erection of dwellings for agriculturallabourers outside of the towns, compulsory powers to take land, where necessary, for the erection of dwellings in small towns, and the extension of the Artizans Dwellings Acts would be suitable means; but this Bill was erroneous in principle, and mischievous in detail. He had entered at some length into his reasons far opposing the measure, because he did not wish to give a silent vote against it.
  MR. FAYsaid, the covenant to surrender the tenancy involved, in ordinary cases, a covenant to surrender improvements and fixtures. A rated occupier would under this Bill, which was confined to ratepayers of £50, be likely to put up extensive improvements. The object of the Bill was, he believed, to deal with the cases of small towns, in which great difficulty in obtaining dwelling-houses existed. In these towns and in villages, the accidental circumstances of a person being a tenant should not, therefore, deprive him of the compensation which the Land Act had given to tenants of agricultural land. A case of extreme hardship had occurred in the county of Louth. A man built an excellent house on some ground which he held upon a lease almost expired, the landlord promising that when the event took place, he would grant a renewal of the lease. The landlord, however, died before the expiration of the lease, and his widow, when it fell in, refused to carry out his promise, and thus, in fact, confiscated all the improvements made by the tenant. Under a measure such as that now proposed such a thing would be impossible. There was a feeling in the North of Ireland that such a measure as this was requisite. He thought that if the provisions of the Bill were restricted in Committee, it would prove a very moderate and beneficial measure.
  MR. SHAWsaid, he knew many instances in towns in which the house in the town had been built on a piece of ground held on very different terms from the land—in fact, on something like a
  1694
  building lease. In the case of holdings of land, the tenant did everything on the land in the way of improvement. But that was not the case in regard to houses. There the landlord had to do all the improvements and repairs, and, so far from the landlords being the masters of the tenants, the tenants were masters of the landlords. There was, therefore, in the present instance, no cause for legislative interference between landlords and tenants; and such interference, when not absolutely necessary, was much to be deprecated. The simple result of a Bill of this kind would be to create a feeling against tenant-right legislation by raising an impression that extravagant demands were made on behalf of the tenants. Those who supported the Bill would therefore, he believed, although quite unconsciously, damage the cause which they had at heart. He did not say that no amendment could be introduced into the law of landlord and tenant; but it might well be postponed for further consideration and to another year. In the meantime, this Bill had better be withdrawn.
  MR. T. DICKSONsaid, he would vote against the Bill as a North of Ireland Member; because he believed it to be a departure from the principles of the Land Act of 1870, and calculated to do injury to the cause of tenant-right. He had heard no demand for it in Ireland, and he therefore trusted that it would be withdrawn.
  MR. O'CLERY,in supporting the Bill, pointed out the misapprehension that appeared to exist in the mind of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) in classing this measure with the Land Act of 1870. The cardinal principle of the Land Act was compensation for eviction. The cardinal principle of this measure was compensation for improvements. It was framed with the object of encouraging the holders of houses in the smaller towns and villages to improve their tenements by securing to them, on payment of rent, the value of their legitimate, outlay. There was no evidence of any desire for confiscation of property, as stated by the Irish Conservative Members. On the contrary, it was intended to legalize what practically existed at that moment in towns like Ban-don, Lismore, Letterkenny, and other places where the landlords had put the system in operation, with advantage to

  1695
  themselves and to their tenants. But a notable instance was to be found as to the desirability of some such action, and one which must not be regarded as based on mere assertion. The Poor Law Report of 1870, which was regarded by that House as of the highest authority in the discussion of the Land Bill in that year, cited the case of Enniscorthy. That town was equal, if not superior, to any other town in Ireland of equal population for the number of well-built and substantial houses it possessed. In many instances these houses had replaced the most worthless tenements, owing to the understanding arrived at with the local landlord that encouragement should be given to the intending tenants to secure them for their outlay in keeping those houses in repair. On the other hand, the neighbouring town of Wexford could furnish examples of absolute confiscation on the part of the landlord of the tenants' improvements. He was informed of the case of an enterprizing merchant there being compelled to pay to the landlord nearly £500 for improvements actually made by himself. Surely, that was a state of things that in a country like Ireland demanded a remedy. No doubt, it would be said it was initiating exceptional legislation; but hon. Members should remember that the ex-Premier said, in 1870, that Ireland urgently required exceptional legislation. The hon. Members from the North of Ireland, who were always so ready to respond to the toast of "Prosperity to Ireland, should support this Bill, so eminently calculated to ensure real prosperity in the smaller towns; but he feared their ideas of prosperity for Ireland meant merely increase of fat cattle, instead of the happiness and well-being of the Irish people, struggling, as they were, against the results of centuries of misgovernment.
  MR. J. LOWTHERhoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin), who had moved the second reading of the Bill, had been convinced by the discussion that he had undertaken a hopeless task, and that he would avoid the trouble of going to a division. But the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the course of his speech, appeared to labour under a misconception with regard to the Land Act of 1870. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke as if the House of Commons
  1696
  in general, and Her Majesty's Government in particular, were bound to regard that Act with great veneration. He spoke of it as forming an essential part of the law of this country, to which we were all bound to look with respect. He (Mr. J. Lowther) must repudiate that proposition. He confessed that he could not do otherwise than protest against that legislation. He knew it was fashionable to say that if a Government were not prepared to propose the repeal of an Act, they should not use any language that might be considered disparaging in relation to it. It had, however, been said that if a physician was called in to prescribe for a patient whose leg had been amputated by another doctor, he was not to be precluded from criticizing the treatment of his predecessor because he was not prepared to sew the leg on again. In the same way, because the Government were not prepared to propose the repeal of the Land Act, they were not bound, on that account, to express any approval of the principle on which it was founded. The hon. and learned Gentleman argued as if the Bill was merely an amplification of principles embodied in the Land Act; but the remarks of hon. Gentlemen near the hon. and learned Gentleman had disposed of that argument, and had shown that the principles sought to be established by this Bill were by no means an enlargement of that Act, but in contravention of its principles. The Land Act dealt merely with agricultural holdings. This Bill proposed to apply to houses in towns principles which were certainly not applicable to them, even if they were to agricultural holdings. It would apply the Ulster tenant-right custom to holdings in towns up to the annual value of £50. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Fay) spoke as if no occupier of £50 would commit what he called the extravagance of putting up a conservatory; but £50 represented a very considerable holding in a country district, and he did not think that the occupier of such a house would necessarily lay himself open to a charge of extravagance by erecting a conservatory. Then it was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced the Bill, that if the tenants of agricultural holdings were secured the benefit of their improvements, the occupiers of houses in towns should not be

  1697
  debarred from these advantages. But on what ground was the Act of 1870 passed? On this—that the position of the occupying class in Ireland was so dependent that they were incapable of entering into contracts with their landlords. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not adduce a single reason for believing that this was the state of facts in towns, nor did he urge that any demand for this Bill existed, or that if it did, it was founded upon any good ground. The occupiers of houses in towns appeared to be perfectly well satisfied, and if not, they had their remedy, and could protect themselves against their landlords by taking some of the many houses which were now vacant in Ireland. It could not be said that the number of houses vacant in Ireland or the demand for them was so great that any exceptional legislation was necessary to secure accommodation for the tenants. The hon. and learned Member had referred to the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875. The principle of that Act was freedom of contract, without which it would never have been introduced by the Government, or acquiesced to in Parliament. He ventured, under these circumstances, to think that this measure was not wanted, and would not meet with the approval of the House, and, therefore he hoped that the House would refuse to pass its second reading.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he should have taken no part in the debate, but that he desired to enter his protest against a portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that he did not approve of the Land Act of 1870, and that, although the Government were not inclined to bring forward any amendment of that Act, he protested against it, and was not prepared to give the approval of the Government to that Act. Considering that the measure spoken of in these terms had been introduced as a great remedial act towards Ireland, it was an unfortunate thing that the Representative of the Government should, upon almost the first occasion of his addressing the House in his capacity of Irish Secretary, enter into a deliberate attack on that measure. He was afraid such language from the Treasury bench might have a very disastrous effect in a country so
  1698
  susceptible to political agitation as Ireland. When a Member of the Government used such language, they should not be surprised if they discovered that in declaring that the Irish Land Bill was not regarded as a settlement by the Government, they had encouraged those who advocated an extended measure of tenant-right to think the same thing. He had never heard a more direct encouragement to the land agitation in Ireland than what had fallen from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman that day. ["No, no!"] When a measure intended as a settlement of a great question had been deliberately adopted by Parliament by large majorities, and a Member of the Government afterwards assailed that Act, he could not regard that as otherwise than an encouragement to agitation—
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I beg your pardon. I did not assail the Act. I said Her Majesty's Government were not responsible for the Act, and declined to join in expressions of approval respecting it.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had substantially assailed the Act, for he claimed a right to criticize it, and said that he protested against it, and that the Government was not bound to respect it. He thought it right to warn the right hon. Gentleman that that was very dangerous language to use in respect to an Act intended as the settlement of a question which had excited so much interest in Ireland. It was because the present Bill was a violation of the principle on which the Act of 1870 was based that he was prepared to vote against the second reading. He did not say there might not be good in the Bill; but the good had not been conspicuously shown in the debate, and the Mover would be well advised if he withdrew it for the present Session.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, that after the observations of the Chief Secretary for Ireland with regard to the Land Act of 1870, he felt bound to proceed to a division, as a protest against the idea that the Act was, or could be, accepted by the tenants of Ireland as a settlement of the land question and as a satisfactory concession of their rights.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he must ask his hon. and learned Friend to consider the position in which he

  1699
  placed hon. Members. They were asked to vote for the second reading, not because this was a good Bill, for there were great differences of opinion upon that matter, but as a protest against something that was said, judiciously or injudiciously, by the new Chief Secretary for Ireland. Who was to decide between the members of the Bar who disagreed upon the question? The hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), a distinguished member of the Bar, and one of the most ardent advocates of tenant's rights, stated that, instead of benefiting anybody, certain clauses would positively inflict the very greatest injury upon many of the persons whom his hon. and learned Friend desired to serve. The Bill seemed really to have been introduced for the purpose of affording an opportunity to hon. and learned Gentlemen to exercise their forensic talents before the House instead of in the Pour Courts. He could not vote for it, and he should leave the House-—a course he was always very unwilling to adopt; but in the conflict of legal argument, he felt that no other resource was open to him.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 258: Majority 241.—(Div. List, No. 61.)
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Second Reading put off for six months.

MONEY LAWS (IRELAND) BILL.
(Mr. Delahunty, Mr. Power.)
MONEY LAWS (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 56] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. DELAHUNTY,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said he felt that he incurred some responsibility by bringing forward that question, as he was not qualified to explain it so clearly as others might be. He had, however, the consolation that the two Houses of Parliament had, as far as England was concerned, decided in favour of the change which he advocated. He had brought this matter forward in the shape of an abstract proposition, but he now brought it forward in the shape of a Bill. The time
  1700
  had arrived when Ireland ought to possess the power, now enjoyed by England, of having a specie circulation so as to render money plentiful and abundant in that country. He must, however, draw a distinction in speaking of the legislation on that subject which affected the Three Kingdoms. Up to within a comparatively recent period England and Ireland had always been in the same position in respect to currency laws, and when he was told that he had to reckon with Scotland in that movement, he denied that altogether. In England the persons who first started joint-stock banking, in consideration of lending all their capital to the Government, obtained a strict monopoly, and no other companies were allowed to compete with them. Thus, the extraordinary anomaly was created, that persons having subscribed their money to facilitate and benefit trade, the way in which that was carried out was by lending to the Government all the money which should have been used for the purposes of trade, and by prohibiting the competition of all other capitalists. The Bank of England was established and no other bank of issue was permitted. The same law was also applied to Ireland. The Bank of Ireland lent £3,000,000 to the Government, and in consideration of lending that capital, which ought to have been devoted to the purposes of trade, they were allowed to have a monopoly. In Scotland it was quite the reverse. There, joint-stock banks were allowed to an unlimited extent; no monopoly existed, and the consequence was that Scotland attained a prosperity which Ireland was never permitted to enjoy. England and Ireland had, in that matter, been in the same boat, and Scotland had been in a different boat. He did not grudge Scotland the benefit she had derived from free banking, nor did he seek to interfere with her arrangements; but he wished that Ireland should have the same advantage of a specie circulation which had done so much for England and made her the great country she now was. A Committee sat in 1826, and it would appear that, according to the evidence, there were 32 joint-stock banks in Scotland. He wanted to show that Scotland had been in this respect a favoured nation as compared with Ireland. The evidence given before the Committee was of an extensive character,

  1701
  and every man of financial ability and information gave evidence tending in the direction of extending to Ireland the law applied to England, the only persons who gave evidence against it being men whose views—although they knew nothing about the matter—were taken as gospel by those who knew less. In Ireland, in 1822 and 1823, the banks failed, and the result was that famine stalked through the land, whilst provisions being abundant could be had for half the price they previously fetched. The people starved because the circulating medium did not exist, or exchanges owing to its scarcity, and there was no employment to near the necessary amount. He only wanted to put Ireland on an equality with England; and no doubt, if the small notes were suppressed in Ireland, they would have a large increase in specie, also in large notes. The two countries progressed somewhat equally in manufacturing developement as long as their financial laws were the same; but the moment their laws became different Ireland went to the bad, while England sprang forward in the race. In England all the great leaders of public opinion had advocated the propriety of withdrawing £1 notes because specie currency would never circulate with small notes. In two years after the abolition of £1 notes the specie circulation of England increased some £20,000,000 or £30,000,000, and the note circulation also increased. The country thereby acquired a larger circulating medium, and at the present moment the circulation of England was five or six times greater than it was in 1824. The English circulation was now £136,000,000; whilst in 1822–3 the whole circulation was only about £26,000,000. Up to 1826 the circulation of Ireland was always about 1 to 4, as compared with England and Wales, but how did they stand now? In 1825 there was an Irish note circulation of over £8,000,000, whilst in England the note circulation by inflation had increased to £35,000,000. From this inflation 77 banks stopped payment, when thereupon Parliament passed a law to suppress £1 notes, in order to let gold into circulation. Since then England had gone forward, whilst Ireland had gone backward. In 1826, out of a population of 200,000 in Dublin, 60,000 went through the hospitals owing
  1702
  to the depression of trade, and manufacturers ceasing to be employed. In 1847, in consequence of the English panic, the banks of Ireland withdrew from circulation more than half the amount of notes they had previously issued, and the circulation was brought down from £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 to £3,500,000 in 1848–9. Again, they had a famine, and from the extinction of employment through the want of circulation, the population diminished to an unprecedented degree. He knew it had often been said that Ireland was merely an agricultural country, and could not be a manufacturing country; but he denied thatstatement, because lreland always had been a manufacturing country up to the year 1826, when England got the right and good money laws, leaving Ireland with the wrong ones. In proof of this the hon. Gentleman quoted descriptions given by Arthur Young on the social and industrial condition of England, Ireland, and France respectively, from which it appeared that the ways and progress and prosperity of England and Ireland were pretty much the same, while France was very backward and much behind them. Arthur Young said the manufactures of Ireland were progressing, and her state was most prosperous, and was fully equal to England in the reward for the labour of her people. He stated that the dwellings in Ireland had been nearly all rebuilt during the previous 20 years. In 1793 they had evidence that Irish manufactures were extending, and had improved considerably. That was the evidence of 80 years ago, and at that time there was no £ 1 notes. Arthur Young stated that in Ireland the cotton manufactures were increasing and improving, and glass manufactures, particularly the bottle trade were also increasing. The manufactures of paper and other manufactures were also carried on in Ireland, and were carried on successfully. Besides Arthur Young, the hon. Gentleman quoted a number of works in support of the fact of the existence of manufacturing prosperity in Ireland for many years; from Postlethwayts' and Jones' works; Lord John Sheffield's Observations on the Manufactures of Ireland, published in 1785; Samuel Crump's Prize Essay on the Employment of the People, in 1793; Thomas Wallace's Essay on the Manufactures of Ireland, in 1798; and Thomas Mortimer's Work on the Mann-

  1703
  factures and Commerce, in 1810. People said they could not manufacture iron in Ireland, because they had no iron, but it was manufactured in places in England where they had no iron; for instance, at Bedford there were very large iron manufactures, and they obtained their iron from South Wales, and they had to pay double the freight to bring it to Bedford by railway, than had to be paid to bring it by sea to Ireland. It was all nonsense to say that they could not have iron manufactures in Ireland as well as they could have them at Bedford, Nottingham, Reading, and other places in England. He contended that Ireland would again be a great manufacturing country, as she had been before, were it not for those infernal £1 notes. If she were only treated by England as Yorkshire was, she would be a great source of strength to the Empire and her prosperity would be assured. That was his idea, and he meant to stick to it and to swear to it. Lord Sheffield, who had been a long time in Ireland, wrote in 1785 that the present improvement of Ireland was as rapid as that of any country had been—that she was a prosperous country, had manufactures, and that her people lived by them. That was the condition of the country 90 years ago, and the question was— Why was it that she had not gone on prospering? People were obliged to fly their country to seek their subsistence. He said that one remedy for this state of things was the remedy which he proposed in his Bill. The reason why he was so anxious to have Home Rule was because such Bills as his would soon be passed. He wanted Home Rule, because he believed it would tend to the prosperity of Ireland, as the local legislation would soon give the Irish as good and similar laws as they enjoyed in England, and therefore it was that he was a Home Ruler to the fullest extent. Lord Sheffield, whom he had quoted before, went on to say that the manufactures of Ireland were excellent. What he wanted to show was that those who said Ireland could not be a manufacturing country were entirely wrong, and he believed he had succeeded in doing that. He believed that if £1 notes were abolished it would settle the manufacture question, and result in making Ireland as prosperous as England. It was ear-
  1704
  nestly desired by him that the £1 notes should be abolished, with the view to establish manufactures in Ireland again, and they must either have this brought about, or Home Rule — one or the other they must have, and the sooner the better, for Ireland would not remain satisfied, or in the condition it was now in without one or the other being brought about. It had been truly said that with regard to Home Rule—
  MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that he is not confining himself to the question before the House.
  MR. DELAHUNTYhoped that the House would see fit to bring about what he wanted. It was a reasonable concession to make, and he would defy anybody to show that the withdrawal of £1 notes would not be for the benefit of Ireland, for they caused the circulation of money to be totally inadequate to the wants of the people. They knew that England had no small notes in circulation, nor had France nor Germany — the latter country passed a law to abolish small notes after the year 1875, and the effect would be to increase the circulation of money of every kind. Look at the countries that had small notes in circulation. They all knew how they got on, and that the populations had been depressed to an enormous extent. Austria, Hungary, Russia, Spain, and Italy had small notes, and, looking at these countries, he would defy anybody to show that it would not be to their advantage to have small notes abolished; while, as regarded Ireland, that country particularly required their withdrawal from circulation. He did not intend to talk the measure out, but would rather appeal to the justice of the English Members, and also to Scotchmen, who, he hoped, would not interfere adversely in this Bill. In regard to this measure, if Scotchmen allowed it to pass in order that Ireland might benefit, and if they found it had that effect a Bill might be introduced by one of their Members to obtain the same benefit if they so desired. In conclusion, he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Delahunty.)
  MR. ANDERSON,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, the hon. Member for Waterford had left him only a few minutes to reply; but that was of little consequence, for the long speech they had listened to had been so entirely wanting in logical continuity, and was so quaintly inconsequential, that it was difficult to lay hold of salient points to reply to. The hon. Member, however, had spoken of prosperous manufacturers in Ireland hundreds of years ago, and had said there were then many hundreds of manufacturers in Dublin, where now there might be scarcely one; but he forgot one large factor in the argument— that in those old times they had little machinery, and no steam—and probably the one manufacturer of to-day would produce as much as the whole 1,500 of old times. He had said, also, that there was no country with a small note circulation that had not, along with it, a depreciated currency. The hon. Member actually forgot his own country—Ireland-—where there was no depreciation of currency, and every £1 note was good for the full 20 s.; and Scotland was in the same position. The hon. Member's argument was only the old logic that "Tenterden steeple caused the Goodwin Sands." He saw the £1 note in Ireland, and he saw want of prosperity there; and so he concluded that the one must be the cause of the other; but he must look deeper than that for the cause of Ireland's poverty: and, in any case, it was an extraordinary remedy to propose for that poverty to take away what money she had, and make her poorer still. The hon. Member had not shown where the gold was to come from to replace the currency he wanted to take away; but he would not continue his remarks, as he did not wish to talk out the Bill, or to deprive the hon. Member of the satisfaction of a division upon it.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA,in opposing the Bill, said, he should not have time to make any lengthened remarks, but he intended to reserve his observations on the Bill for a future occasion. He did not think the withdrawal from cir-
  1706
  culation of £1 notes would do anything to remedy the wrongs and evils complained of by the hon. Gentleman. "Without going at length into the question, he would state as regarded the hon. Member for Waterford, that although they all respected him, a considerable number of his Party looked upon the subject he had introduced to their notice that day as one of the very few on which he was astray. When they found that his Bill was brought in, having all the appearance of being a serious measure, and when attempts had been made by hon. Members to force it to a division at this hour, he thought it was his duty to protest against this course, in order that on a future occasion the question might be fully discussed on what they might courteously term its merits.
  It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Resolutions [March 19] reported, and agreed to: —Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAISES, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Colonel STANLEY.
  Bill presented, and road the first time.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.