HC Deb 04 June 1880 vol 252 cc1284-308

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, apologized for the lateness of the hour at which his Motion was brought on. He was unable, when the first reading was moved, to explain fully the reasons for the measure, because of the lateness of the hour at which he was obliged to bring it forward; and as earlier in the evening his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork had been unable to obtain a promise from the Premier that a special day should be fixed for its consideration, this must be his excuse and his defence for moving the second reading at that hour of the morning. If his measure was to accomplish any good whatever to the distressed tenant farmers of Ireland, it was particularly necessary that it should become law as speedily as possible. He could not describe the Bill as a measure intended to have a temporary effect, because, although the difficulty with which it was meant to deal was, he hoped, temporary, yet he meant the Bill to be a permanent measure. It was absolutely necessary, in his opinion, in order to remove a very conspicuous defect in the Land Act of 1870; but it was especially necessary at the present time, because of the sufferings which the tenant farmers of Ireland had experienced and were still experiencing. In submitting this Bill on the Irish Land Question, he had asked himself—"What is it that the House of Commons, during the present short Session, in view of the difficulties in which the Irish tenant farmers find themselves, may reasonably be asked to do? What measure is it which, though simple in its character, can be calculated to afford considerable assistance to the tenant farmers of Ireland, without in any way unduly straining what are called the rights of property in the landlords of Ireland?" He and his hon. Friends who had joined him in preparing the Bill did believe it would afford considerable help to the tenant farmers, and, therefore, thought that the House ought not to separate without giving some earnest to the tenant farmers of Ireland of the future intention of the Legislature. All who had heard and read the recent statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland must feel that the tenant farmers of Ireland had much cause and ground for hope and expectation. But side by side with that feeling was also a feeling of anxiety in reference to the social condition of the country, during the time which must intervene between the end of the present Session and the commencement of the next. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was himself so anxious on the subject that he had not disdained to appeal to the Representatives of Irish constituencies to assist him in promoting such a state of feeling in Ireland as would conduce to the preservation of order in the country. It was evident that he saw possible danger ahead when he was thus prepared to make that appeal. Nothing, however, could be so well calculated to promote disorder in Ireland as that a new Parliament, elected under the influence of Liberal policy and Liberal feelings, should assemble and separate without recording, in the slightest or smallest degree, any expression of opinion in regard to the claims that had been so persistently put forward by the industrious tenant farmers of Ireland. Therefore, it seemed to him, if Her Majesty's Government gave assent to this modest and moderate proposal, that they would do more to promote peace and tranquillity in Ireland than could be accomplished by all the vigilance of the Royal Irish Constabulary, or all the terrorism which it might be possible to inspire, if Her Majesty's Government saw fit to preserve any remnants of the expiring Peace Preservation Act. The immediate remedy for the difficulties of the Irish tenant farmers was to be found in the one clause of this short Land Bill; and he should, therefore, like to state briefly the effect of passing it into law. He and his friends believed it would have a twofold effect. It would be, on the one hand, a deterrent of eviction, and, on the other, a deterrent of exorbitant rents. It was perfectly true that under the 9th section of the Land Act of 1870, if a Court certified that a tenant who had been evicted from his holding for non-payment of rent had been subjected to an exorbitant rent that it could award him compensation for disturbance, which was the same as if that disturbance had been the result of what was called a capricious eviction. But after having been in operation for ten years, it was only fair to ask what protection that provision had given to the tenant farmers, and what benefit had they derived from it? It appeared from a Return obtained on the Motion of Sir Colman O'Loghlen, formerly Member for the County of Clare, printed on the 3rd of February, 1878, that in no single case had the Court certified that a tenant ejected for non-payment of rent had been subjected to an exorbitant rent. Practically that clause had been of a very delusive character so far as it was at all calculated to afford tenant farmers in Ireland compensation for disturbance; but if that section had been entirely inoperative in affording compensation for disturbance in cases where tenants had been ejected for non-payment of rent, what had been the general effect of the Act in regard to ejectments? The number of ejectments for non-payments of rent during the three years previous to the passing of the Land Act of 1870 had been less than the number subsequent to its becoming law. Therefore, taking the working of the 9th section by itself, and the working of the Land Act on the whole, he maintained that there was an admitted grievance, and it was that grievance which his Bill proposed to remedy. One of the effects of the Land Act of 1870 was that the landlord saw it was to his advantage to increase the rent instead of getting rid of his tenant, as it had been called, capriciously. He had nothing to do but to go on increasing the rent until he made it impossible for the tenant to pay it. Then he got rid of his tenant—not capriciously within the meaning of the Act—and all he had to do was to compensate him for what were called unexhausted improvements. What had been the result? It might be said he was putting an extreme case; but it had very frequently occurred. As the law at present stood, a tenant 12 months in arrear might be ejected from his farm, and. because he was so in arrear, he was deprived of any right to claim compensation for disturbance. It thus appeared that to a man who, owing to some financial embarrassment, to the depression in agriculture, or to disastrous seasons such as had been experienced for the last three years, was unable to pay his rent, and who might yet have a farm worth 10, or 15, or even 20 years' rent, outside the Province of Ulster, he would have nothing whatever to claim under the Land Act of 1870 on account of disturbance for non-payment of rent. Therefore the Land Act afforded no adequate protection to the tenant farmer as it was constituted at the present time. Some short time ago he had ventured to describe English legislation for Ireland generally as being of a hand-to-mouth description; and he was asked not unnaturally by the Prime Minister to except the Land Act from that sweeping description. Although that was a very natural request every Act of Parliament must be judged by its results. He had always understood that one of the main objects of the Land Act of 1870 was to secure compensation for unexhausted improvements, and to prevent capricious evictions; but he need not tell the First Lord of the Treasury that capricious evictions had been very frequent since the passing of the Land Act. He remembered very well that the late Member for the County of Cork—Mr.M'Carthy Downing —brought forward this question some three years ago, and then proved, from official Returns, that there had been more evictions of every kind—-capricious evictions and evictions for non-payment of rent—since the passing of the Land Act than before that important measure became law. Therefore, while he was quite willing to describe the Land Act as an important step in the improvement of the Irish Land Laws, he was bound to point out to the Prime Minister and to the House that it had failed in a very great degree to accomplish the very purpose for which it was introduced and passed into law. He was sure it was not necessary in support of his Bill to refer to general principles or to insist on the necessity of legislation on this subject. That necessity was, in fact, already admitted by everyone who had read the letters published day after day in the London newspapers, describing the condition of the tenantry of Ireland. Public opinion in England as well as in Ireland admitted that large reforms were much needed in order to settle on a satisfactory basis the relations between landlords and tenants in Ireland. He would not make quotations from those letters, nor would he enter upon any general considerations; but he was anxious that the House should understand that this Bill represented the very least that those who came there to advocate the claims of the tenants, and who were anxious to promote legislation on an equitable basis, could ask, in view of the present condition of Ireland. The manner in which that moderate proposal was received by the Government and by the House would be to Irish people an accurate indication of what they had to expect from the English people in regard to grievances which for so long a time had oppressed them. It was absolutely necessary that a Bill of this kind should be passed in order to give hope and encouragement to the tenant farmers of Ireland in reference to the more radical measure which the Government, he understood, had undertaken to propose next Session. If he had not interpreted the declaration of the Chief Secretary as a promise that the Irish Land Question in all its entirety should be considered by Her Majesty's Government during the next Recess, and that they would come before Parliament next Session with a scheme of their own, he would not on the present occasion have been satisfied with a Bill of such moderate dimensions as that which he now asked the House to read a second time. This was, however, a Bill which the House could pass without prejudging in the slightest degree the greater, and in some respects the more delicate, questions which must be raised when the House next attempted to grapple with the Irish Land Question as a whole. An hon. Member had said to him in the course of the evening that the presumption that the tenant was entitled to compensation was settled by Act of Parliament, and that hon. Member seemed to think that the passage of this simple measure would coerce the Court into giving compensation for disturbance in all cases. He simply answered that assertion by calling attention to the 18th section of the Land Act, which showed that the Court had, at the present time, the most ample power of going into all the equities of the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland. At the present time the chairman was not bound to give compensation for disturbance or unexhausted improvements. The sections of the Land Act only obliged him to go into all the equities of every case. When the tenant at the present time brought the landlord into court, the latter had liberty to make every possible kind of counter-claim, and the Court in its judgment always took into its consideration all the circumstances. Supposing, for instance, a case where a tenant was ejected, not because he was unable to pay an exorbitant rent, but because he refused to pay a fair rent, did anyone mean to maintain that the effect of passing this one clause of the Land Bill which he was at present proposing to the House would be that the chairman would be coerced into awarding compensation for disturbance to such a tenant? Why, certainly not. The other sections of the Land Act left the chairman perfectly free to act, according to all the equities of the situation in each particular case. He did, under all these circumstances, most earnestly appeal to Her Majesty's Government, and to the Members of that House, to assent to the second reading of this Bill; it would deter evictions, it would deter the unjust raising of rents to a point that the tenant was unable to pay; and it would do this without in the slightest degree fettering the action of the good landlord, or depriving any landlord in any degree of his just rights. To that extent it would promote an equitable understanding and relationship between landlord and tenant, besides being a great help to the tenant farmers of the country in their present almost unprecedented difficulties.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, he should confine the very few remarks he had to offer in seconding the Motion to showing that the present measure was a fair and logical carrying out of the provisions contained in the 12th section of the Land Act. The 3rd section of that Act gave compensation for disturbance according to a certain scale set forth in that section. He submitted that the effect of that was to give the tenant property in the land to the extent of that compensation. To compensate a man was to pay him the equivalent of something else he had lost, and what the tenant lost was a certain property or right which he had in the land. That view of the case was still further supported by the fact that the Land Act measured in another way the property the tenant lost by capricious eviction; in that same 3rd section there was also a provision that a landlord in certain cases might buy out the right of the tenant to compensation by giving him a lease for 31 years. Thus, in a rough way, the Act measured by leases of 31 years the estate or right which the tenant had in the land, and which was represented in the former part of the same section by the compensation given him. Then came the 9th section, provided that when a man was ejected for non-payment of rent, he should be held not to be disturbed within the meaning of the 3rd section, followed by the provision that in the case of tenants under 15 acres, if the chairman considered the rent exorbitant, even if the ejectment be for non-payment of rent, he should be empowered to give compensation for disturbance. The result of these sections, therefore, as he maintained, was clearly to create, or rather to recognize, property in the tenant. The 9th section forfeited that property under ordinary circumstances the moment an action was brought for ejectment, on the ground that one year's rent had not been paid. In most cases where compensation for disturbance was given, it was measured by the rent paid, and it usually consisted of an amount equal to several years' rent. In one case it would be seven years' rent, in another five, in another four, and in another one. The result, therefore, was, if he was right in regarding this right of the tenant as property, that a man who might be entitled to seven years' rent as compensation for disturbance would lose the whole of it if he was evicted for non-payment of a single year's rent. That was not merely at variance with the nature of property, but was an utter departure from the principle which governed the first part and the main part of the 3rd section. The object of the Bill at that moment before the House was to carry out the principle of the 3rd section, and to recognize the property in the tenant under that 3rd section; to reduce the forfeiture to the extent to which Courts of Equity had always endeavoured to reduce them. If a man gave a bond conditioned for the payment of £200 in a penalty of £1,000, no Court would allow more than the £200 and the interest if the conditions were not fulfilled. The same principle was applied in the Bill. For instance, a tenant evicted for non-payment of a year's rent had a property equivalent to, say, five years' rent. He only owed a year's rent. Was it fair that because he was unable to pay the rent for that single year that he should lose his entire right? If the Land Act of 1870 was to be carried out to its legitimate end, its principles would certainly find expression in the Bill of his hon. Friend. But what would be the legitimate effect of it? Did anyone believe that a landlord, coming forward to eject a non-rent-paying tenant, would be obliged to pay four years' rent, merely deducting the one year's rent that was due to him? Any such hardship would certainly not arise. The landlord would merely tell the tenant to find somebody else who would pay what was due, giving the tenant compensation, and take his holding. The result, therefore, would be, on the one hand, a perfectly free sale; and, on the other, that the landlord would obtain a tenant who could pay his rent. At the present time, the rights of the tenant were subjected to forfeiture in a most cruel way, while the Bill merely aimed at protecting the property in him which was created by the Land Act. The Bill would do this. He did not say that it would also give absolute security to the tenant; but it would tend to give him stability, and it would also have the effect of preventing any undue increase of rents. Thus it would go a great way towards securing for Irish tenants the three things which they had been attempting to secure for many years; the right of free sale, the right to hold the land as long as he paid a fair rent, and the right to resist and avoid the imposition of undue rents. The Bill, in his opinion, would do these things without violent legislation, and without doing what would be a great evil, stereotyping the relation of landlord and tenant. This Bill was a necessary and essential consequence of the Land Act, and for the reasons he had stated he gave it his hearty support. It would be quite idle to treat the Land Question without dealing with the question of rent. The rents were now very much too high, and he thought that they ought to be submitted to the view of a Land Court. He could conceive only two objections which might be raised to that course. It might be said by the landlords that the rent charged was a proper rent for the land. But, on the other hand, the landlord might shrink from having the rent they charged submitted to the investigation of the land Judges. But unless something of that kind was done, he was perfectly certain that it would be impossible to arrive at anything like a fail-settlement of the Land Question in Ireland. So far as this Bill had a tendency to promote the fair settlement of rent, it had his cordial support; and he believed that in supporting it the Government would be only carrying out the principles of which the seeds were laid by themselves in the Land Act of 1870.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. O' Connor Power.)

MR. GRAY

said, that one weak point in the Land Act of 1870 was that it never contemplated any reduction in the value of land. The Act seemed always to contemplate the protection of the tenant, so far as it went, during a period of rising prices; but it did not afford the tenant any protection during a period of falling prices. It was very much to be regretted that the possible depreciation in the value of land was not taken into consideration during the progress of that Act. Twice in recent times they had had a great depreciation in the value of land. About 1815 they had such a state of things, and again in 1847, and now they were reduced to the same condition. By the sudden depreciation in the value of land the tenants had completely lost their money and their interest in their holdings. It would more completely carry out the principles of the Act of 1870 if depreciation in the value of land were prevented from affecting the tenant's interest in his holding. The Act contemplated that the tenant, under certain circumstances, should be entitled to compensation if evicted for non-payment of rent, provided that his rent was exorbitant. A rent might be fair three or four years ago, when the value of land was greater, but now the chairman of a Land Court, acting in his judicial capacity, would not say that a rent had become exorbitant simply owing to the depreciation of land. In fact, a chairman would not now rule, as a matter of law, that a rent which was a short time ago fair had become exorbitant from the depreciation in the value of land. There could be no doubt, however, that it would be reasonable that the rents should be reduced. All that was asked by the Bill was that, acknowledging the principles of the Act of 1870, provision should be made for preventing injustice being worked by the depreciation in the value of land. This was a very serious matter; and pending the consideration of the whole question by the Government, and pending the introduction of what they trusted would be a comprehensive measure, they thought that some protection should be a afforded to the tenants, of whom there some 10,000 in Ireland liable to eviction without compensation, if the landlords thought fit to exercise their legal rights. He did not think it right that even for 12 months a large body of men should be left in that condition. By the legislation of 1870 they intended to protect those tenants, and they purported to do so, and the present Bill had only for its object carrying that intention into effect. They should not let the Session pass without doing something to protect the Irish tenants. Large numbers of the tenants had already been served with notices to quit, and they could not expect the country to remain quiet if they refused to extend this small protection to the unfortunate tenants. No one could expect that the great measure of the Government would be introduced this Session. He heard the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary the other evening make an appeal to the landlords not to exercise their legal powers under the present circumstances. If the right hon. Gentleman considered that those tenants required protection, it was his duty not only to urge kindly landlords not to evict them, but to see that those under other landlords were fully protected. He did not think it could be said that this Bill would do any injustice whatever to the landlords. As the hon. Member for Mayo had pointed out, the 18th clause of the Act gave full discretion to the chairman to say whether any compensation was to be awarded to the tenant. The tenant was not to receive one penny unless the chairman thought it equitable that he should do so. He thought that Her Majesty's Government which passed the Land Act of 1870 was bound to supplement that Act by passing the present Bill.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, that he had no intention of making his first speech at that hour in the morning. He rose as representative of a large English constituency to appeal to Her Majesty's Government, either to accept the second reading of the Bill, or else, in accordance with the request previously made to them, to give an opportunity for its discussion, for he could not be unmindful that this Bill related to the most distressed and the most suffering of Her Majesty's subjects. He would, at the same time, remind Her Majesty's Government, and especially he would remind the Prime Minister, that the measure now proposed by the hon. Member for Mayo was practically if not exactly, a reversion to the original lines of the Land Bill proposed by the Prime Minister in that House in 1870.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, that if the 9th section of the Land Act were not repealed it would work most unjustly. Let them take the case of a tenant paying what might be considered a fair rent. Suppose that a tenant were unable to pay his rent, as he believed many were that year, they were actually conferring a premium upon the landlords to evict a man whose holding might be 10 or 12 years' value of the rent he paid. Yet, because the rent was a fair one, and the tenant was unable to pay it this year, he was liable to be evicted without compensation. That was the case which this Bill proposed to remedy. The tenant who held at a rack rent could be given compensation by the chairman of the Court; but where a tenant held at a moderate rent a chairman had no power to give compensation, though the tenant's interest was far more valuable than the case where the Chairman at Quarter Sessions had power to grant compensation. If they refused to pass this Bill they would enable landlords to put out of their holdings men who owed only one year's rent, although their holdings might be of several years' value. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would confess that his own Bill, as originally drawn, did precisely what was done by the measure now brought forward by the hon. Member for Mayo.

MR. BRIGGS

said, that he did not propose to occupy the time of the House many moments. In his opinion, the case made by the Irish Members required an answer from Her Majesty's Government. Hon. Members who came from Ireland felt this matter most deeply; and although most of them were of opinion that Her Majesty's Government were taking the affairs of Ireland into their most anxious consideration, yet he was sure it would be gratifying to them if they had some statement from Her Majesty's Government upon the subject they had brought forward that night. He would venture to add his appeal to those which had preceded it, and to base it upon two grounds. First on account of the gravity of the matter; and, secondly, because at that hour of the morning it would perfectly impossible to go thoroughly into the details of the affair. He had witnessed, he might say with admiration, the way in which this subject had been treated by Irish Members. There had been no attempt at what, in the last Parliament, was known by the name of obstruction. They had discussed this matter fairly and. calmly, and their speeches had been very moderate indeed in their tone. Neither had they in any way trespassed unduly upon the time of the House, nor had they shown any disposition to interfere between the House and whatever Business was to follow this measure. He thought that that disposition imposed upon Her Majesty's Government the duty to make some statement which would either enable them to pursue the discussion at length, or would leave them to pursue the discussion at a future day, or some statement which would do away with the necessity for discussing the matter at all. The House would pardon him for having said this much, and he hoped that they might speedily bring the discussion to a close.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that they had had a short but a very interesting discussion. They had heard statements from various hon. Members who had supported the Bill; but the discussion had taken him somewhat by surprise. Though short, the discussion was a most important one, for, to a great extent, the Bill proposed to alter the relations between landlord and tenant; and he could only say on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that they had had no intimation that the discussion was likely to come on at that time. Two or three days ago the matter was brought forward by the hon. Member for Mayo, and a question had been asked that evening by the hon. Member for the City of Cork as to whether his right hon. Friend would give a day for the discussion of the matter. He thought that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister showed his sense of the importance of the subject when he stated that under the circumstances of the present pressure of Government Business he could not at the present moment state when he could fix a day. After that he did not expect that they would have had this discussion brought on. For his own part, he would candidly state that he was not prepared to oppose the principle of this Bill. But this was a very important matter, and the people of Ireland were looking with great anxiety to see what would be done. Being, therefore, anxious not to say anything which would be misleading, he did not wish, on the other hand, to say that he approved of the measure. Undoubtedly, reference had been made to the Land Act of 1870; and he could not but admit that in that Act, as originally brought forward by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, there was a clause— turned out in "another place"—which was, in some respects, in the direction of the present Bill. He believed, however, that the present measure went a good deal further. The right hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) stated that he should support it under the impression that it gave an absolute discretion to the Judge; but he (Mr. Forster) did not see any such discretion in the Bill. That was not a matter of detail; it was almost a question of principle. All he could say was that he did not think they were in a position to discuss the Bill that night. He thought they should have more time to consider it. He supposed that it was no use for him to say that they were going to look into the whole question in all its branches, for that was not unknown to hon. Members. This was a very important branch of the Land Question—it was almost its essence. He had very great doubt whether it was possible to deal with this question— to deal so thoroughly with the Land Question as this would imply in a partial manner; but he did not wish to prevent a thorough discussion of the Bill, and all he could say was that the Government must ask the House that night not to proceed further with the measure. It would not put the hon. Member in charge of the Bill in a worse position if he allowed it to be adjourned now and brought it on when he next had the opportunity. Perhaps, however, the hon. Member might be prevented from doing so by the operation of the half-past 12 Rule. He did not think that they could assent to the principle of the second reading that night, for it was asking them to do more than they felt themselves prepared to do without further consideration. He was afraid that if the hon. Member persisted in going to a division he should be obliged to do what he should exceedingly dislike—namely, to vote against the Bill. This was too important a question, and would too thoroughly disturb the relations between landlord and tenant, and was far too important a matter to the interests of the Irish people to be decided at 2 o'clock, after a discussion of an hour, without the Government having an opportunity of thoroughly considering it. He must say that the measure came before the House in some sort as a surprise, although he did not blame the hon. Member for that. The hon. Member must admit that it would be unreasonable to ask the Government to assent to important legislation of this kind without due consideration. He must not be supposed to be expressing any opinion against the tendency of the Bill; but he did not think they could go on with it then.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

said, he was sure there was not the slightest disposition on the part of hon. Members from Ireland to take any unreasonable course. There was a great deal of force in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but they did feel very strongly that the course taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo gave them a strong claim upon the indulgence of the House, and they were not asking too much in requesting that the Government would give an early day for the resumption of the debate. The fact that Irish Members had sat in the House that night till that time in such numbers as were then present was an assurance of their disposition not to press the Government for any of their own time if they could do without it. But the matter was urgent in the last degree; and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and also to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, not to hesitate in this matter. He could assure them that they would be liable to be misunderstood if they did not take the course he suggested. He repudiated the idea he meant to convey; but he did say that their conduct would be susceptible to this interpretation— that they put them off with a smooth and civil speech in the early part of the evening, and that now they would put them off by the burial of the half-past 12 Rule. Some singular good fortune —he would hope singular generosity— on the part of hon. Members opposed to them had given them the opportunity of bringing the Bill on that night; but they could not again hope for like good fortune. Therefore, they did appeal to the Government to hold out some chance that within the next 10 or 12 days his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo would have an opportunity of resuming the debate on the Bill. It would be sufficient if the debate were to come on at 11 or 12 o'clock. He protested, in all frankness to the Government, that his hon. Friends on that side of the House were anxious to meet them in all fairness. They thought that what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was wise, and they did not wish to push the matter then. What he had said reflected his generosity and kindness of feeling, and would not be without its effect in their country.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that at an earlier period of the evening the hon. Member for the City of Cork asked him to give a day for the discussion of the Bill; it followed, as a matter of course, in his mind, as he presumed it must have followed in that of every Member of the House, that that Bill could not possibly be discussed that night. The request amounted to this—that the Government were asked to give a day subsequently to the present. Therefore they concluded that the Bill could not come on that day, and he did not hesitate to say that he had had no opportunity of examining the Bill with the care which he should desire. More especially, he had not had an opportunity of comparing this Bill with the original intention of the Land Act of 1870. He made that confession, and, in answer to the appeal of the hon. and learned Member, he would make a counter appeal, and that was that they should be allowed to refrain from prosecuting the discussion on the promise that at an early day he would take care that Her Majesty's Government should carefully consider the provisions of the Bill, and should make a declaration of its intentions with regard to it, which being done, it would be open to the hon. Member to take any course he chose with reference to it. In the earlier part of the evening he had stated that he recognized the importance of the subject, but pleaded his inability to name a Government day for the purpose of discussing the measure of an independent Member. Having said that, he expressed a hope that the hon. Member would be able to obtain a day for himself; but he likewise held out the expectation that if he did not, at another period of the Session he should be happy to reconsider the matter. It would not be desirable that such a question as this should be put aside during the present Session for the want of a day, and in expressing that opinion he was only repeating what he said earlier in the evening. Having said so much, he did not think the Government was acting unfairly in asking that the Bill shall not be farther proceeded with that night. When the Government had examined thoroughly into the matter, and considered the very important questions arising, then they would be prepared to state the course they would take.

MR. GIVAN

would only detain the House for a minute to refer to one or two matters in connection with the discussion, as he had no intention at that moment to enter fully into any analysis of the principles of the Bill. He must express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government had not expressed himself more favourably to the Bill. It was quite clear if the second reading was put off indefinitely that there was a great chance of the Bill never passing into law at all. In Ireland great things were expected from Her Majesty's Government. The tone of the Chief Secretary made them hopeful of the way in which he would deal with Irish affairs; at the same time he knew well the amount of discontent which prevailed in Ireland at the pre- sent time with the Land Laws; and, therefore, he was most unwilling to see this Bill postponed to an unsettled day. If that were done, this discontent would certainly accumulate and produce serious results. The hon. Gentleman who moved the second reading fell into one slight error. He said that the landlord who ejected a tenant for non-payment of rent had to give him compensation for unexhausted improvements; whereas, as a fact, the landlord had the right to turn out the tenant without giving him any compensation at all. He had known cases where the landlord had brought an action for non-payment of rent, and the tenant was able to get a solvent substitute. The landlord objected to the incoming tenant, refused to take him, put off the outgoing tenant from day to day till the period fixed by law for redemption had expired, and then the tenant was precluded by law from claiming any compensation whatever for his farm, although the amount he ought to have received was 10 times more than the rent that was due. It seemed to be forgotten also that actions of ejectment for non-payment of rent were exceptional measures, which did not prevail in other countries. As he was informed, it was an action very rarely brought in England. It must be remembered also that although this Bill dealt with one remedy given by law to the landlord, there was nothing in it to preclude him from taking every advantage of all the other remedies given him by the law. There was nothing, for instance, to prevent him from bringing an action to recover the rent which might be due, or from putting in an execution, selling the farm produce to the highest bidder, taking the proceeds, paying himself his rent and costs, and handing over any balance that was left to the tenant. What could be more fair and equitable than that? In each it was the same remedy as a landlord had against any ordinary debtor of his. The Bill really only took away an exceptional privilege, and left the landlord all fair and equitable remedies. The Chief Secretary remarked that the discretion alluded to by some hon. Gentlemen did not appear to be given to the Judge by the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman would observe that this Bill by its own wording was made part of the Act of 1870. The 18th section of that Act would still continue in force; and, there- fore, the full discretion there given to the Judge would be in no way affected. It was said also that the Bill would alter the relation between landlord and tenant; but he could not understand how that could be, when the tenant was still left liable for his rent, and the landlord had full power to recover it. There was really nothing exceptionally difficult of amendment in the Bill; and he would, therefore, join in the appeal that had been made to Her Majesty's Government to show that there was a definite disposition to give a full hearing on this question. He knew something of landlords and tenants in Ireland. He saw nothing unjust and unfair in the Bill or he would not support it; and as they expected a comprehensive measure on the whole question of Land Reform from the Government next year, he did appeal to them to support the present Bill, and thereby to allay the discontent which certainly did exist at the present time in Ireland. If any injustice should result from the passage of this Bill it could easily be remedied in the Government measure next year; and, therefore, he did hope that they would hear something definite, or else that the second reading would be allowed to pass.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

was sorry to observe—and he made the remark with great respect—that neither of the right hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House seemed to have properly appreciated the character of the Bill now under discussion. The Premier seemed to be under the impression that the Irish Members were inviting him to what the French called an academic discussion of an abstract question. That was not the character of the measure now proposed for second reading. It was a Bill designed to meet a pressing, urgent, and a terrible emergency; and it was, in the true sense of the word, a Bill for the relief of the distress in Ireland. It sought to relieve that distress in the most direct, and in the least demoralizing form, by giving the tenants that rightful compensation to which they had in equity and justice every claim. The objects of the promoters of the measure, as he understood it, were, partly to pass a reform which was already needed, and which had been partly granted, and next, to meet those months of the coming winter, when they expected that the distress among the people sought to be relieved would be most severe. It was, therefore, a measure of the utmost urgency, and no hon. Member on that side of the House could for a moment consent to even a single hour of unnecessary delay. The measure had been fairly put before the House. It was in print either on the Tuesday or the Wednesday morning; it consisted practically of but one clause of a few lines and it was merely a duplicate of the principles of a Bill, for the carriage of which through the House the two right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken were mainly responsible. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government ought to know what were the provisions of the Land Bill he introduced in 1870, and, of course, he now remembered what they were. He and his Friends who had backed this measure had had to search the pages of Hansard to find out what the principles of that measure originally were. The same privilege of search was open to the Chief Secretary; and, therefore, by this time he ought to know what were the main characteristics of the Act of 1870. The emergency was so terrible and pressing that he did hope his hon. Friends round him would persevere until they got a definite assurance that some hours of one day would at least be spared to the discussion of a Bill whose object was to save the Irish people from the dangers which threatened them.

MAJOR O'BELRNE

was quite satisfied with the proposal of the Premier, which seemed to him reasonable; and he therefore would wish to remind his hon. Friends opposite that if they persisted in taking a division they would lose all chance of carrying the measure.

MR. T. C. THOMPSON

said, he wished to add his appeal to that of hon. Members for Ireland. In the constituency which he represented, as was the case, indeed, in many English constituencies, there was now rising up a large body of Irishmen, whose hearts beat as warmly for Ireland as those who were left in the old country. These men were perfectly of one mind with Irish electors, that something must be speedily done to deal with and settle this Land Question. In the opinion of many Gentlemen in that House a great danger was now looming over Ireland. If this Bill were not passed many families might be left next autumn homeless, friendless, and hungry on the sides of their native hills. It was certainly the duty of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Administration to fix some time for the discussion of this measure in order to relieve these poor Irish people from this threatening danger.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he must confess he had heard the most unsatisfactory replies of the Premier and the Chief Secretary with painful surprise. It was not long since the General Election; and he remembered that during that arduous and important crisis it became his duty, as Vice President of the Home Rule Confederation of Great Britain, to visit the constituency of Leeds at a time when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was the chief Liberal candidate for that borough. At that time the votes of 5,000 electors were no small consideration; and he could well remember the enthusiasm with which the name of the right hon. Gentleman was received at a vast meeting of Irish electors. Looking at his past history, they expected a future in conformity with it; and, remembering the many expressions of his sympathy with Ireland to which he had given expression during his candidature in Scotland, they had no doubt whatever that one of the first and foremost objects of his Administration would be to grapple with the grave and serious misery and distress in Ireland. They were all prepared to give every credence to Her Majesty's Government when they said that they intended to bring forward a large and comprehensive measure of land law reform in Ireland next year. But between the present time and next year there was a wide gap, and, with all respect for the convenience of the Government, he would tell them that they were not discharging their duty if they hesitated to put aside every other Business whatsoever in order to give at least a full and fair opportunity of discussion to this most important measure of relief. Her Majesty's Government were disposed to be precious of their time. He was equally precious of the time of Her Majesty's Government, and he was fully aware that the best means of economizing was not the method which was at present in full operation before the House. There were, no doubt, many questions of very great importance both to England and Ireland in which a very deep interest was taken; and they were all, therefore, disposed to be very econo- mical of the time at the disposal of the Government. But where they gave they also expected something in return; and they did not consider they received that return when they obtained nothing but vague protestations of good will. Vague protestations of good will would not keep evicting landlords from carrying out those threats which had already been cast abroad far and wide. The Government had refused to renew the Peace Preservation Act; but did they think they were conducing to the preservation of peace when they refused to give even an opportunity for the full and fair discussion of this just and moderate Bill? [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no.] He was speaking practically, not academically. Her Majesty's Government invited them to do their best to find some day for themselves. That they were not likely to find. After they had been reduced to the extremity which they already foresaw, the Government would take into consideration, some time towards the end of this already short Session, how they should give a day, and perhaps then, if they found it wise, would concede the moderate measure of justice in this Bill. But what, then, would they do with regard to the carriage of the measure in "another place?" Unless a day were given to the Bill very speedily, they could not be sure of its passage through "another place." Could not the Government say within what time they would declare their determination? He only asked for a promise with some sort of tangibility, and that the Government would not put them off with vague promises of coming to their aid at a time when, according to all appearances, it would be too late either to save the people or their credit.

MR. GLADSTONE

May I be permitted to explain what I think must have been misunderstood? I promised, in the first place—having found it quite impossible up to the present to consider this question—on a very early day to announce our intentions. I begged the hon. Gentleman, considering the present state of Public Business, to use his efforts to find a day himself for the discussion, and I said, if he could not find a day, that I should regard it as a matter of great public necessity that this subject should not be put aside for want of a day. Of course, the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken must know that when I said that I never could have contemplated so miserable a sort of subterfuge as offering a day so late as to impede due discussion in the other House.

MR. PARNELL

asked the Prime Minister to consider the position in which Irish Members would be placed if the matter were left in this indefinite way. Let him try and place himself in the position of an Irish Member representing a constituency to whom this question was a matter of vital importance. They were utterly unable, and dare not try the risk of leaving this matter unsettled. They had already done their best to find a day, and there was none possibly available for this purpose earlier than the 21st of July. If the Bill were postponed till then it would be utterly impossible to pass it into law this year, even with all the assistance that Her Majesty's Government might desire to give it, both in that House and "elsewhere." Therefore, if they lost their present opportunity of taking the opinion of the House of Commons they might never get another. The Prime Minister promised that there should be no delay in announcing the intentions of the Government. That was not a very large promise. The House was entitled to have, not merely the opinion of the Government on the merits of the Bill, but also an opportunity for fully and fairly discussing the question. That was all they asked. Could not the Prime Minister say he would give them a few hours upon some Government night after some other Business had been dealt with? The position of the right hon. Gentleman entitled him to the excuse that he had not had time to make himself acquainted with the provisions of this very short, one-clause Bill; but the engagements of the two Irish Law Officers were not of such a nature as to justify the excuse that they had not had time fully to examine the effect of the Bill on the Land Act of 1870, and to advise the responsible Minister of the Crown as to the course to be adopted. The Prime Minister seemed to think that they might do more. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I expressed no opinion.] He thought he heard from the Ministerial Bench a suggestion that they might do more than they had done. It was very necessary that the House should understand the exact scope of the Bill. It did not pretend to be a settlement of the Irish Land Question, or to forestall in any way the right of the Government to consider this question in all its branches, and to bring forward their views in a future Session according to their promise. It simply proposed to remove a matter which was pressing with intense severity upon at least 150,000 out of the 600,000 tenant farmers of Ireland, and it also supplied a valuable addition to the Irish Land Act. That Act permitted the chairman to award compensation in cases of disturbance under Section 3. Section 9 limited that discretion in respect of evictions for non-payment of rent, and provided that such evictions should not be treated as disturbances, unless he could certify that the rent was exorbitant. They now desired to deal with a large number of intermediate cases between the case of an exorbitant rent and what anybody might consider to be a fair rent, cases which were brought into especial prominence from the stringency of the present times, and to give the chairman a discretionary power to award compensation where he thought fit. Nothing more than that was contemplated by the Bill, and nothing more than that could be found by anybody in it. The discretionary power of the chairman under the 18th section was left in the fullest extent, and they did not interfere with it in the slightest degree. He would ask the House to notice the latter part of that 18th section, which provided that if it should appear to the Court— That the landlord has been and is willing to permit the tenant to continue in the occupation of his holding upon just and reasonable terms that the tenant's claim for compensation shall then be dissolved. This Bill would not fine a landlord who ejected his tenant for non-payment of a fair and reasonable rent; it only sought to complete the discretionary power in the hands of the Court, and which was actually originally intended to be given by this very Land Act. The Bill sought to supply a most valuable method of peace preservation; and he really would ask the Government to consider whether they could not, in addition to what they had already said, promise that they would afford the House an early opportunity of expressing its opinion on the principle of this measure?

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

said, he did not desire to say one word at that moment on the principle or the necessity of this Bill, and he only rose in order to point out how little difference there seemed to be between what hon. Members on the other side of the House and he himself as an Irish Member desired, and that which the Prime Minister had offered to do. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to have said that he would, within a very short time after considering this Bill, be prepared to state to the House the course the Government intended to take upon it. If the Prime Minister would only add to that statement an assurance that, on Monday next, or on some day next week, he would name a day some time in the present month on which, after important Government Business had been dealt with up to a late hour of the night, he would give an opportunity for the discussion of this question—in which all Irish Members and, he was glad to say, many English Members took a great interest—he would be making a concession which would meet the fair and reasonable wishes of Irish Members, and which would be gratefully received by them. He hoped nothing would be done in dealing with this Bill, involving as it did important principles and far reaching considerations, which might result in its being thrown out.

An hon. MEMBER said, he hoped no effort would be wanting to carry this Bill. He did not know how they could go back to their constituencies if they did not pass it. He, for one, should feel himself disgraced if they had to go back in that way.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

, said, he failed to understand the difficulty in which hon. Members opposite seemed to be. As he understood it had been formally announced that the Prime Minister would tell the House on Monday what course the Government meant to take in respect of this Bill, and if not on the Monday, at all events in a few days, and it would probably follow that on Monday also, or within a very few days, the Prime Minister, or some Member of the Government, would be able to give them an opportunity for discussing the Bill further. It must be quite obvious to hon. Gentlemen that Public Business would not admit of naming a day at that time; and if a definite time was named, as he had said, he did not think there could be any desire to go further. The Bill involved most important principles; and it must be quite obvious, in the present condition of the leading Members of the Government in regard to it, that it would be quite impossible to continue the discussion further at that time. He did hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite were satisfied, for he could assure them that the Govenment were as anxious as anybody could be to have this matter fully discussed.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—{Mr. Justin McCarthy,) —put, and agreed to.

Debate adjourned till Monday next.

Forward to