Commons Sitting of 3 March 1880

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Irish Church Act (1869) Amendment [100]; Census (Ireland)* [101].
Second Heading—Ulster Tenant Bight [8]; Registration of Voters (Ireland)* [54]; Road Debts on Entailed Estates (Scotland) [95]; Blind and Deaf-Mute Children* [41].
Committee—Report—Beer Dealers' Retail Licences* [65].

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PRIVILEGE—(TOWER HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE (METROPOLIS) COMMITTEE).
  Order read, for Attendance in custody of Charles Edmund Grissell;
  The Serjeant at Arms brought Charles Edmund Grissell to the Bar of the House:—Whereupon Mr. Speaker addressed the prisoner as followeth:—
  Charles Edmund Grissell; your conduct last Session in connection with the inquiry before a Committee on a Private Bill was the subject of patient inquiry by a Select Committee of this House, which Committee came to the following conclusion:—
  "Your Committee are unanimously of opinion that Mr. Charles Edmund Grissell, in asserting that he could control the decisions of the Committee on the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill, and in the offer that he made to do so, was guilty of a breach of the Privileges of the House."
  Thereupon an Order was made by this House for your attendance before this House. That Order was disobeyed. Again you evaded the Warrant issued for your apprehension by proceeding beyond the jurisdiction of this House, and two days before the prorogation of Parliament you returned to this Country and placed yourself within reach of my Warrant. You were taken into custody just before the prorogation, and on the prorogation of Parliament you were discharged.
  This House has now been in Session for nearly four weeks, and you have delayed until yesterday, when public notice had been taken of your conduct, to make your submission. This House,

  241
  nevertheless, is willing to hear any explanation which you may think proper to offer to it, with respect to your conduct.
  Mr. Grissell: Sir, I feel deeply grateful to this most honourable House for giving me an opportunity of personally expressing my sincere and deep regret for the grave offence of which I was adjudged guilty, which I now deeply deplore, of which I now plead guilty, and for which I now beg to be allowed to tender my most humble apology. I beg humbly to be allowed to add that my failing to present a Petition at the opening of the Session was not owing to any intentional disrespect to this honourable House, but because of a paragraph which appeared in The Times which made my friends think that this honourable House did not wish that its business should be impeded by so insignificant and humble an individual as myself. I humbly throw myself on the merciful consideration of this honourable House, and beg to offer my most complete submission for my grave offence.
  MR. SPEAKER: Unless this House has any desire that the prisoner at the Bar should be examined, he will now withdraw, in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, while his conduct becomes subject to the consideration of the House. Is it your pleasure that Charles Edmund Grissell do withdraw? [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] The Serjeant at Arms will withdraw with the prisoner at the Bar.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I apprehend that the course which it will be most appropriate to take in the matter of Charles Edmund Grissell will be to order that he be committed to Her Majesty's gaol of Newgate for the offence of which he has been found guilty. The House is aware that there is this difference between the proceedings of the House of Commons and those of the other House of Parliament—that the other House has power to commit an offender for a definite period; but this is not the practice of the House of Commons. We have, however, if we desire to commit an offender, power to do so, and that commitment remains in force until either the House is prorogued, or until some Motion is made for releasing the prisoner from custody. We have, therefore, only to consider—first, whe-
  242
  ther Mr. Grissell should be committed at all; and, if so, whether he should be committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms or to the gaol of Newgate. At the close of last Session, when he came before the House on the day before Parliament was prorogued, he was committed to Newgate; and I apprehend that will be the course for us to follow. I therefore move—
  "That Charles Edmund Grissell, having evaded punishment for his offence against the Privileges of this House, until the close of last Session, be committed to Her Majesty's Gaol of Newgate, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrants accordingly."
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I beg to second that Motion. We should have been glad if we had not felt it necessary. I think this is one of those cases in which the House would always wish to err on the side of leniency; partly because we do not wish to exercise our powers of punishment, and partly because we are not anxious to assert our Privilege unless it should be absolutely necessary. We have also the feeling of not wishing to exaggerate the importance of such an act as has been committed. But, looking at what was done with the offender whose offence was, so far as we can judge, not nearly so bad as that of this person, and looking at the course he has adopted, I do not see that we can do otherwise than that now proposed. I confess that what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Spencer Walpole) did not make the case stronger against this person than it was before. We all know that my right hon. Friend would put it as leniently as possible; but I think there has been no submission sufficient to allow him to escape from punishment. I think it due to the House to state that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown me the Resolution that he proposed yesterday, and that I fully concurred in it; but I must take blame to myself for being under some misapprehension in this matter. I thought we should still have been able, if that Resolution had been passed in its original form, to take what steps might seem advisable. I need not dwell, however, on that question, and I now beg to second the Motion.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, that Charles Edmund Grissell, having evaded punishment for his offences against the Privileges of this House, until the close of the last Session, be committed to Her Majesty's Gaol of Newgate, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrants accordingly.—[Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

ULSTER TENANT RIGHT BILL.
(Mr. Macartney, Mr. Charles Lewis.)
ULSTER TENANT RIGHT BILL.

  [BILL 8.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MACARTNEY,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it did not attempt to deal with the whole of the customs of Ulster, because the wish of its promoters had not been to introduce a measure which would cause a great deal of discussion in the House, but a measure which would have a fair prospect of passing into law during the present Session. When the Bill of last year was before the House an objection was raised by the Attorney General for Ireland that the words used in the Preamble were "the customs of Ulster," and not the words used in the Act of 1870—namely, "The usages known under the denomination of the Ulster tenant right." He had taken care to remedy that defect in the Bill he now asked the House to real a second time. The 1st clause of the Bill proposed to enact that, instead of requiring, as at present, that a tenant who wished or was obliged to quit his farm should go to the County Court to have it decided whether the tenant right existed upon the estate or not, the presumption of the existence of the right should be in his favour; and there was no unfairness in such a provision, because the usages of Ulster were prevalent through the whole of the Province. In the Act passed for the purpose of giving compensation to tenants in England for improvements made by them that principle was adopted, the onus probandi being thrown upon the landlord, and not upon the tenant. The clause provided that in Ireland, whenever a compensation claim arose in that part of the country where the Ulster custom prevailed, it should be presumed that it existed upon the particular estate on which the claim was made, and the landowner would be put to the proof that the tenant right did not exist, or that it had been purchased by him or by one of his predecessors. He thought that clause would be generally acknowledged to be
  244
  only fair. He would not dwell longer upon the 1st clause, because he thought it was based on justice, and he hardly thought that any hon. Gentleman would offer any opposition to it. The 2nd clause was one which he believed would not be quite so acceptable to hon. Members as the 1st. In Ireland there was a usage of Ulster which was not only consistent with the rights of the landlord, but also with the rights of the tenant—namely, that if the landlord gave notice to quit he must give compensation to the tenant. This rule had the sanction of long and immemorial usage, and it was well known. One of the first customs of Ulster was that of requiring the tenant, when he wished to part with his holding, or when he was anxious to sell, to give notice to the landlord or his agent, and obtain permission to do, and also to obtain the sanction of the proprietor before the purchase money was paid and the farm handed over. It was part of the custom that arrears of rent should be paid out of the purchase money, and that the next neighbouring tenant should have the preference over all other persons in the purchase. If no next neighbouring tenant was willing to purchase the farm it was offered to some other tenant on the estate, and it was only when no tenant on the estate was willing to purchase that the farm was allowed to go to a stranger. He did not say that this rule was followed upon every estate; but it was followed upon a good many. There were many such usages in existence; but the one to which the 2nd clause applied was one which was not, strictly speaking, a usage. It was unknown on almost any estate in the North of Ireland till after the passing of the Poor Law Act of 18 38. That Act enacted that occupiers of small holdings which were rated at and under £4 a-year should not themselves pay the poor rates, but that the poor rates should be levied upon the landlords. In consequence of the alteration of the law with regard to the right to vote at elections, the landlords found it more agreeable to themselves, instead of having very small holdings, to consolidate the farms, and a number of tenants were allowed to sell, and he was sorry to say some of them were ejected. The consequence was, that leases became very much more numerous than they were before, and small holdings fetched exceptionally

  245
  high prices. For small holdings of five or six acres there would be 15 or 16 persons attempting to obtain them, whereas for holdings of 50 or 60 acres there would only be two or three applicants. The consequence was, that the small holdings ran up to a very high figure, and the result of this was, that the price, beyond which no person should go, was fixed at the estate offices. That was the reason of the rule to which his clause referred. He did not moan to assert that the prices fixed invariably represented the real value of the tenant right; but it placed a certainty on the amount to be given by the incoming tenant. Therefore, in that view, the rule was not at all an objectionable one. But there were instances in places where the tenant right custom prevailed of the arbitrary rule which limited the amount to be paid, and if no compensation was given to tenants selling gross injustice would be committed, though, of course, no injustice would be done to the purchasing tenant. Although the rule existed that the tenant should not pay more than a certain price, that rule was in many cases evaded, the difference between the two prices being paid behind the back of the landlord, though it was perfectly well known to the landowner and the agent that the transaction took place. He asked whether, if such a thing occurred to a tenant, though the rule provided that he should only pay £5, to pay £15 or £20, it would be a fair and proper transaction that only the fixed price should be paid? This rule had been the cause of many heart-burnings, and very great dissatisfaction in many counties in Ireland; and he was anxious, in the interests both of the landlords and the tenants, to see it changed. He knew it was said that unlimited tenant right was of great value, and that it deprived the landlord of one of his rights. It was said it unfairly increased the value of the holding of the tenant, and the extra money which was given to the tenant on selling his holding came out of the pocket of the landlord; but experience proved that that was not the case in the counties in Ireland where tenant right was most broadly carried out—namely, the counties of Down, Antrim, Armagh, Derry, and Tyrone. In the counties where tenant right was most generally adopted the greatest prosperity prevailed, the
  246
  tenantry were the most comfortable, the farms were the best cultivated, and the landlords, if they desired it, obtained greater prices for their farms than could be obtained in any other part of Ireland. Therefore, the argument he had referred to could not be called a fair one, and it could not be said that tenant right prevented a re-adjustment of rents, if desired. Under the tenant right of Ulster, rents were revised about the period when leases fell in. He thought this rule ought to be altered, and it certainly would not do the slightest harm to any landowner in Ireland if the 2nd clause of this Bill were passed. The 3rd clause was intended to remedy an evil which he believed everyone would think ought not to occur. Owing to some omission or want of forethought, it was not provided in the Act which was passed in 1870 that tenant right should exist on the cessation of a lease. It appeared to be only just that the leaseholders should not be in a worse position than the tenants-at-will, or tenants from year to year. It would surprise an Englishman, he knew, to hear such a doctrine put forward as that a tenant, on the cessation of a lease, should get compensation if he was put out of his holding; and he might be asked—"Is there not a clause of surrender in the leases?" There was a clause of surrender; but he believed, in the old copyhold customs of England, a copyholder got compensation if he was turned out, and such was also the custom of Ulster. A great deal of evidence was taken on this subject before the Select Committee which inquired into the Tenant Eight Question. Many witnesses were examined, who came from various parts of the North of Ireland. If the House would permit him, he would read a few extracts from that evidence which were published in a small volume by Mr. Donnell, which was a most elaborate and thorough-going book on tenant right. Mr. John Stewart said that the rents were adjusted when the leases fell in. Mr. Atkinson, of County Down, was asked how far he thought tenant right affected the value of holdings? and that gentleman said—
  "I do not think they are at all affected by it; we get as much with a lease as without."
  Similar evidence was given by Mr. Wilson, of the County Armagh. Mr. John Andrews, agent for Lord London-

  247
  derry's estates, County Down, was asked if there was any difference between those who had leases and those who had not? and that gentleman replied—
  "Not a bit; there is just as much confidence as there is under tenant right. I do not think it makes much difference, in the sale of the tenant right, whether there is a lease or not."
  He did not think there could be stronger proof in favour of tenant right than that. There had been a discussion in that House lately on a proposal for establishing a similar law for Scotland, and it appeared that the landlords in Ireland did not care about the Law of Distress, because they were secured by tenant right. If a tenant fell into arrears, and did not pay his rent, then, under tenant right, the landlord could get the rent from the incoming tenant before the farm was handed over. He hoped this Bill would obtain a second reading. It was looked forward to with great anxiety by the tenantry in the North of Ireland, who were anxious to have this matter settled. It might be said—"Oh, the Courts of Law will settle it;" but the Irish people did not like to go into Courts of Law, because it caused dissension and difficulty between the landlord and tenant. He thought that all this ought to be avoided, especially in Ireland, where at the present time a crusade had been started against the landlords, which was carried on by gentlemen who inscribed on their flags principles of a very extraordinary character. It had been foretold lately in that House that the next Parliament would return Members who would vote for hanging half the landlords and abolishing the House of Peers, and he believed that the Gentleman who made that extraordinary prophecy would be one of the first to vote for carrying it out. He hoped the House would give a second reading to the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Macartney.)
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that though Notice of opposition had been given to the Bill which the hon. Member brought in last year, no Notice of opposition appeared on the Paper against the present Bill. It was opposed last year on the ground that the Bill proposed a legalization of theft; but no opposition appearing on the Paper, he assumed that the
  248
  opponents of last year's Bill were going to allow this measure to pass. As he listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Tyrone, he could not help asking himself whether this was all that the Conservative Members for Ulster had to place before the tenant farmers of that Province? Was this the redemption of the promises so profusely made by them in 1874? Was it possible that the hon. Member for his own county, who was returned to the House by an overwhelming majority on the simple question of tenant right, instead of taking back to the electors a substantial Act of Parliament providing some redress for their grievances, would have nothing to offer them but this miserable Bill? His belief was that the hon. Member would be unable to obtain from his Friends a sufficient amount of support to enable the measure to pass the second reading. At the same time, he must appeal to the Government on behalf of their supporters from Ulster to allow the measure to be read a second time. It was so slightly Communistic that the name even of the Chief Secretary for Ireland might have appeared on the back of it, and he need not say that if that had been done it would have filled the farmers of Ulster with confidence. The Tories hitherto had done nothing in this matter, though he must not omit to mention that a Bill had been introduced by the hon. Members for Down and Downpatrick, and had passed all its stages in that House, though it had been strangled in the House of Lords, dealing with the question of tenant right at the expiration of leases. The Bill now before the House was remarkable, not so much for what it contained as for what it passed over. In Ireland, at the present time, the most pressing question was security of tenure—to put it more strongly, continuous occupancy, or, to use a very strong word, fixity of tenure. This Bill contained no provision whatever to remedy this great want. It contained no provision whatever against the arbitrary raising of rents, and there was no word in it about extending the operation of the "Bright Clauses" of the Land Act. The Irish people and the Irish tenant farmers were often taunted with being thriftless; but how could there be thrift where there was no security and no inducement for the investment of capital? [The hon. Member

  249
  proceeded to read to the House the opinions expressed on this subject by Mr. Francis Shepherd, a tenant farmer in the County Down, as expressed in The Spectator in December last, and added that there was no one who so unceasingly misrepresented Irish feeling in this matter as the Chief Secretary for Ireland.] From a political point of view he did not find fault with the right hon. Gentleman's intemperate speeches, because every speech he had made during the last two months would lose his Party a seat in Ulster. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be ignorant of the fact that rents in Ireland were mainly the consequence of tenants' improvements in the soil; and he had never, in that House or out of it, manifested the slightest sympathy with the agricultural classes. So long as proprietary rights were respected, the right hon. Gentleman did not care a straw for the tenants. He placed the interests of a few thousand landlords in Ireland above the interests of 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 people who lived by agriculture, and who were at present exposed to hardships and poverty. He (Mr. Dickson) must repudiate the assertion so often made that tenant right meant landlord's wrong. The hon. Member (Mr. Macartney) himself had proved that wherever tenant-right existed there the landlord's rent was safe and paid punctually. As far as he (Mr. Dickson) understood the wishes of the tenants, all they wanted was that the property created by their own toil and labour, and expenditure of their little capital, should be as safe against confiscation as that of the landlords. The main question at the General Election would not be the foreign policy of the Government, but the Land Question; and he held that House would not much longer be able to resist the demand now being made, alike in the North and in the South of Ireland, for the improvement of the Land Laws. What they wanted was security of tenure, and the question must be dealt with on a broad basis, and not by a miserable Bill like this, which only touched the fringe of the question, and which, after all, embodied a selfish policy confined to the Province of Ulster. He would support the second reading of this Bill, because it contained an instalment of what was required by Ireland; but he hoped that when the hon. Member
  250
  (Mr. Macartney) shortly faced the electors of his county he would have the courage to tell them that, after seven years' experience, he found that a Conservative Government would never accept a measure of Land Law reform which was worthy the paper on which it was printed.
  THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTONsaid, he was sorry, judging from the emptiness of the Benches round him, that this important question did not receive that attention from the House which it deserved. He had no intention of making an electioneering speech on this occasion. Neither was he prepared to call the Bill for which he was going to vote a miserable one, following the example of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken; but he would say a few words upon the clauses of the Bill. The Bill was a short one, dealing with but three points, and these contained in three clauses. The 1st clause assumed the existence of tenant right; the 2nd dealt with the estate office rule—that was the tenant right at the termination of tenancy; and the 3rd clause had regard to the tenant right at the end of the lease. With regard to tenant right in Ulster, though some hon. Members might not agree with him, it must continue to exist as it had existed for many years past. He was glad to hear, the other day, the Leader of the Home Rule Party (Mr. Shaw) express his approval of the condition of the Ulster tenant farmer, owing to the Ulster custom, stating that the prosperity of the North of Ireland, in contrast to the South and West, was, in a measure, owing to the tenant right system. In that he cordially agreed. Tenant right was the right of occupation, and conferred security upon the tenant; but, he would add, it was not the tenant right only that gave this prosperity to the Ulster farmers. It was the farmer's intelligence and thought by which he was able to avail himself of the advantages of the Ulster custom, and utilize it for the benefit of himself and the community. The second point had reference to what was called the estate office rule. In most of the large properties in the North of Ireland tenant right was not fettered with restrictions; and he was not aware that the landlords on these estates were in any way worse off in their position than landlords on smaller es-

  251
  tates, neither was he aware that the tenants were injuriously affected by the privileges they enjoyed. The third point in the Bill was the position of tenant right at the end of the lease. This was a subject in which he was much interested, for he had, in conjunction with several Members on that side, endeavoured, unfortunately without success, to pass a Bill in regard to tenant right at the expiration of the lease through both Houses of Parliament, and he rejoiced to find it one feature of the Bill now before them. For a considerable time there had been uneasiness in the minds of leaseholders with regard to what was the state of the law on the point under the Act of 1870. Not only so, but the doubt existed equally in the minds of the Irish Judges, some holding the opinion that the covenant to surrender did away with tenant right at the end of the lease, and other Judges holding the contrary view; and as no case had yet been brought into the Superior Courts, the question, practically and legally, remained unsettled. At the present moment he might say the presumption of tenant right remained against the tenant. He must prove that the estate upon which his tenancy existed had the privilege of tenant right; but in many cases it was very difficult, indeed, for the tenant to prove the existence of this custom, and it was with all an expensive process. Under the Bill, however, the presumption would remain with the landlord to disprove the existence of the right or the holding which formed part of the estate. Therefore, if the Bill became law, he hoped this clause would remain in it, for it would be the means of removing a very considerable amount of disquietude and uneasiness from the minds of a large and respectable body of Her Majesty's subjects. In the North of Ireland there were from 30,000 to 32,000 leasehold tenants, and to these, to find that the Act of 1870 had been finally settled, would be a relief to their minds as well as their pockets. He trusted the Bill would receive a second reading, and impressed on the Government, if they found any reason or desire to alter any of the clauses, to mate their objections in Committee, when the Bill, both as a whole and in parts, would receive a full and critical discussion. He cordially supported the second reading.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsuuported the second reading. He knew the interest the subject excited throughout Ulster; and he well remembered during the time he was canvassing the County Down that the speeches that excited the most attention were those dealing with the question of tenant right. Unfortunately, that question had been used by unscrupulous politicians for the purpose of creating differences between landlord and tenant, and, to some extent, these had been successful. But, so far as his experience went, the tenant farmers put forth no sort of revolutionary demand. He observed a clause in the Bill embodied the principle of tenant right, which his Colleague the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hamilton), one of the best of Irish landlords, made the subject of a Bill, and passed through the House last Session; and he was the more interested in the question that his (Viscount Castlereagh's) grandfather and his ancestors had originated and done much to foster this Ulster custom. Let the Bill go into Committee, where its provisions might be fully discussed, and, if necessary, amended; and he expressed a hope that the Bill would aid in filling up the breach which had been made between classes in Ireland, and restore good feeling between landlords and tenants—two classes whose interests were identical.
  MR. D. TAYLORsaid, the importance of the subject must be apparent to every Irish Member, and a Bill which in any way assisted the tenant farmer in Ireland, in however small a degree, would have his hearty support. Though the hon. Member for Dungannon (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had said the Bill merely touched the fringe of the question which agitated the whole of the country, and until the settlement of which peace and prosperity would not settle in Ireland, still, though the Bill did not deal with the whole question, it did deal with two or three points, the settlement of which would be of great advantage to have solved. The greatest hardship had been inflicted by the system by which some landlords had attempted, since the Land Act was passed, to fritter away the interests of the tenants. Prior to that there existed, in most instances, an amount of good feeling and good faith between owner and occupier which, he regretted to say, had not continued

  253
  since the passing of the Land Act. That Act, which had done so much for the tenant farmers in Ireland—especially for those in Ulster—and which, in the great majority of cases, Ulster landlords had accepted and fairly carried out, had, he was sorry to say, a contrary effect with some landlords. That Act being passed, there were some landlords who said, in effect—"Now, you must expect nothing more from us. You must stand for your rights, and we will do the same." Taking that course, they had tried to dispute inch by inch the rights of the tenant, and had tried to injure the prosperity the tenant had created by his outlay and labour in his farm. The greatest instances of this were to be found in the North, where on many estates rules were made limiting the amount per acre a tenant should receive. No rule or action of the landlord on this question had had a more injurious effect on the agricultural interests of Ireland. It did this—it gave to the very worst tenant on that estate the same price for his tenant right as was given to the best and most improving tenant. So, whilst the worst class of tenants could secure a full and adequate amount of tenant right, the man who had erected buildings, drained his land, put up fences, and in other ways made the land worth double as much as when he entered upon it, was limited to the same sum as the very worst tenant was at liberty to receive. This was a real loss to the country, and deterred many from entering upon improvements which they had the means and ability to carry out. There was one point in the Bill deserving the attention of the House, and he trusted it would be adopted—that was, that the presumption that tenant right existed should be in favour of the tenant. Landlords now who objected to the tenant right custom on their estates had nothing to do but throw the whole onus of proof on the tenant, and that, in some localities, was sometimes a very difficult thing to prove. Where a tenancy on an estate had gone on from father to son, where the occupation had been continuous, without change of ownership, from one to another by sale—in such cases as these the tenants had the greatest difficulty in satisfying a Court as to the existence of the custom. But, on the other hand, to throw the burden of proof on the
  254
  landlord, as proposed by the Bill, would be an advantage, because the landlord would always have the greater facility to prove the non-existence of tenant right than the tenant could possibly have on the other side. The landlord would have records in connection with the estate which would show how it had been managed for generations, and only by such proofs could the tenant be shown to have the tenant right. There was one thing that fell severely on the interest of tenant right. On many estaates where valuations were made—say, at periods of 10, or 15, or 20 years, these increases were dealt with and fairly paid by the tenant; but if the tenant wished to sell his farm at an intermediate time between these periods of valuation, then the landlord often withheld his consent, except on the condition of a certain increase of rent per acre. These conditions, imposed simply because the farm was changing hands, were most unfair, as sweeping from the tenant the prospect of his getting a fair price for his tenant right. By the Land Act of 1870 tenant right was made legal, and the tenant was given a legal interest in the estate; but this legal right was of such a precarious nature that a landlord wishing to set it aside had in his power the means of doing so. With regard to the other clause in the Bill making tenant right apply to leases, it would relieve a great deal of heart-burning in the North of Ireland, and remove one great cause of the agitation which for many generations had existed. He trusted that the Bill would pass. It did something; and the least thing it would do would be to make an acknowledgment on the part of the House that as to the Act of 1870, passed as a measure of benefit for Ireland, it was felt that no matter how much good it was admitted to have done, there were points in it which did not carry out the intentions of its promoters. It was altered in its passage through the House, and now did not meet all the exigencies of the case. The passing of the Bill would be an acknowledgment on the part of the House that the Act of 1870 required amendment—a fact of which Irishmen had no doubt.
  SIR THOMAS M'CLUREsaid, he was ready to vote for and to promote the passing of the Bill into law. It had been fairly stated that its provisions

  255
  would not be considered sufficient, but that further legislation in the same direction would be sought for, not for Ulster only, but to include all Ireland. He regretted that, after the unanimous assent of the House last Session to the Resolutions proposed by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), upon the recommendation of the Select Committee, to give increased facilities to agricultural tenants to become owners of their holdings, no measure to promote this in any degree had been brought forward by the Government. There was, at the same time, a suggestion made that facilities should be given for tenants arranging with their landlords for perpetuities of their holdings at reduced rents on payment of fines. There was no doubt this would be largely taken advantage of. The Bill now before the House would give more protection against arbitrary or unreasonable interference, and therefore, so far, deserved support. In claiming for the farmer, when he discharged his legitimate obligations, an independent position, he might have to trench upon a delicate subject—he meant the right claimed by many landlords to control and direct the votes of their tenants. It might be said that the Ballot removed any question of the kind. It was true that it enabled the tenant, if he kept his own counsel, to vote without the possibility of any person knowing how he voted. Yet they knew that attempts were still made to bring illegitimate pressure to bear upon the tenants, when, either directly or through the medium of agents or bailiffs, tenants were given to believe that their voting or identifying themselves with parties of opposite views to their landlord or his representatives might subject them to his displeasure and to a difference of treatment. An influence inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution was thus brought into play. The farmer at the present time required the utmost exertion to bear up against foreign competition and the effect of unfavourable seasons, and it became the more necessary to give him all reasonable protection from arbitrary dealing. There should be nothing done to break down his spirit or impair his motive for exertion. Those who would stretch the rights of property so as to interfere with the rights of conscience were enemies to the stability of property. Before the
  256
  passing of the Ballot Act the absolute right claimed by many landlords to direct the votes of their tenants was felt by them to be humiliating and degrading. Seldom did they venture on an open protest; but they, many of them, emigrated across the Atlantic; and, in writing to their friends of the hardships and difficulties encountered in their new settlements, they added—"But we have no bailiff coming amongst us with his orders." No doubt, this deprivation of their rights as citizens caused the emigrants and their friends to look back on Ireland as a land of vassalage and slavery. He felt confident that it would be for the benefit of the country, and the real advantage of both landlord and tenant, that the farmer, after meeting the just demands against him, should feel himself in an independent position, enjoying Constitutional freedom, and secure in possession of the fruits of his industry. He should support the measure, as he would others having this object in view.
  MR. SYNANcongratulated the House and the country not only upon the unanimity which had characterized the proceedings of to-day, but upon the enthusiasm the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir Thomas M'Clure) had created. It appeared they were acting the part somewhat of the Greek Chorus—they were all unanimous; and he supposed the hon. Members from Ulster would not object to a Member from the South of Ireland, where those violent agitators, according to the noble Lord the Member for County Down (viscount Castle-reagh), were doing so much mischief, in joining them in support of the present Bill. It occurred to him that the absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the present occasion was rather remarkable. Why was not the Representative of Ireland present to support the Bill? Had he some doubts or hesitation as to whether the rights of property were involved or affected by the Bill? Was that the process of education which the Tory majority were undergoing at the present moment on this question? It was rather suspicious that on the eve of a Dissolution the Chief Secretary for Ireland should refuse to give his opinion upon this important question; but, possibly, his ideas of the rights of proprietorship were as strong as ever, and he regarded the present measure as a dangerous one. It might

  257
  be asked why he, as a Southern Member, joined in support of a Bill promoted by Gentlemen who had opposed them in every measure they had introduced in the House? He supported the Bill simply because he was an Irish Member—simply because the interests of Ireland—whether they be in the North or South or East or West—where all the same to him. He cared not by what Party a Bill was promoted; if it would serve a good purpose it should have his warm support. He supported the tenant in the North of Ireland as well as he would wish to support a tenant in the South of Ireland; and he only wished that the Members for the North of Ireland would meet the Members for the South in the same spirit. He presumed that the Bill was to receive the support of the Government, and he believed it was right that it should receive that support. He had not the slightest objection that they should make all the capital they could out of it, because he knew that it was only in this way, when they were on the eve of a General Election, that the Government would be induced to yield to any proposal for the benefit of the people of Ireland. The 2nd clause of the present Bill proposed to remedy a substantial evil, which at present virtually converted the Ulster custom into no custom at all. What it did was to injure the good tenant at the expense of the improvements he made, and placed the bad tenant on the same level with him by adopting a hard-and-fast line by what were called estate office rules. It authorized a private bargain, and left the landlord in the North of Ireland at liberty afterwards to disavow and treat it as a fraudulent bargain. The 3rd clause of the Bill provided a remedy upon which the Judges of the land had disagreed. Some of the Judges held that tenant right existed at the end of a lease, while others held that there was a surrender of tenant right at the end of the lease. He believed the Government intended to accept the second reading of the Bill, and he hoped they would not attempt to injure the measure in Committee by any Amendment they might introduce into it.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsupported the second reading of the Bill, and with great pleasure, because he believed that if it were allowed to become the law of the land it would remove the ground-
  258
  work of the arguments against the Bills which had been introduced, with only scant success, for legalizing tenant right throughout Ireland. The noble Marquess who seconded the Motion for the second reading of the Bill said that he would not make an electioneering speech, and the noble Marquess kept his word. If there was any Member who, by the acts of his ancestry, could prove the sincerity of his motives upon a measure of this kind, it was the noble Marquess; and he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) ventured to say that, on the whole, the Duke of Abercorn had not suffered from the line of conduct he had pursued towards his tenantry. The rental received from property in the North of Ireland where tenant right prevailed was not only, in proportion to acreage, larger than the rental of any corresponding acreage in the South of Ireland, but the property itself would sell for a greater number of years' purchase than the low-rented land of the South of Ireland. A noble Lord who spoke in favour of the Bill from that side of the House talked about £26,000,000 lying idle in the banks of Ireland. It might be imagined from that, that Ireland was a tremendously rich country, and overflowing with financial wealth; but the fact was that there was very little money indeed lying idle in the Irish banks, or, for that matter, in the banks anywhere else. The banks took it from their customers, and paid interest on it at so much per cent per annum to make any profit they had to relend it. In that way (perhaps, to the extent of seven-eighths of the capital borrowed by the Irish banks), it was lent out again; and when they saw buildings in the course of erection on a farm, new farm-houses being built, and material evidence of prosperity and wealth, they must not put this down as an addition to the wealth deposited in the banks, because, in a great measure, it was from advances made by the banks that these improvements were made. There was no great amount of idle capital in Ireland; but there was one thing which, he was sorry to say, was allowed to remain idle—namely, the capital of the labour which would be applied to the land on all occasions if the tenant felt he had security for the value of the application of it. They now believed that they could be turned out of their holdings without compensation, or that their rents might be raised in-

  259
  definitely if they improved the land. They, therefore, went on with their farming operations in a lazy fashion, without affording the landlord any temptation to raise the rent. His own belief was that if they carried a Tenant Eight Bill—not merely the present one, which was only partial in its operation, but one for the whole of Ireland—it would do much more for the landlords than for the tenants. He should be glad to see some general Act passed that would give his own tenants perfect security against himself and those who were to come after him, and against all landlords. He believed that such security would do much to improve the soil and the income arising from it from age to age, as it had been improved hitherto in the North of Ireland. He, therefore, gave the second reading of the Bill a hearty support, and he hoped it would be carried for two reasons—first, because he believed it was good in itself; and, secondly, because it would put an end to bad and illogical arguments which he heard in that House applied to the several tenant right measures introduced by his Friends which they had vainly endeavoured to pass.
  MR. BIGGARthought the Bill now before the House deserved the support of the House for two reasons. One was, that it acknowledged a very important principle, that the Land Act of 1870 required amendment. It was an important acknowledgment by the Tory Party in that House—a Party who had hitherto opposed all reform of the Land Question, and had endeavoured to thwart all those who proposed such a reform, accusing them of being Communists and persons who wished to take what did not belong to them. The common charge made against the reformers on the Land Question was "absolute confiscation;" and if he understood what confiscation was, it meant taking away something and giving nothing in return for it. That was a very important acknowledgment by the advocates of landlord rule in Ireland on the Tory side of the House. Another important principle acknowledged by the promoters of the Bill was that absolute ownership in land did not exist, and that the House had a right to interfere and do what it believed to be good, irrespective of the alleged ownership of the land by the landlords. That, to his mind, was an important acknowledgment, which
  260
  went to the root of the whole question; because as soon as it was admitted that the law was made not for the interest of a very small, but highly wealthy class—the landlords, who reaped the entire benefit of the land and gave nothing in return—a different state of circumstances would arise, very much more reasonable and considerate for the persons in regard to whom they possessed these unfortunate legal rights. When it was made clear that the rights of absolute ownership hitherto insisted upon no longer existed, a great deal would be done towards effecting improvement in the future. At the same time, he did not think the Bill was entitled to unqualified praise, and he deprecated the introduction of small reforms in the amendment of the law. The reforms proposed by the present measure were of the smallest character, and failed to go thoroughly to the root of the question. If reforms were to be undertaken in this piecemeal way, the result would be that the Land Laws would not be settled for many years to come. What ought to be done was that the Government should introduce a Bill to carry out a complete amendment of the law, which was certainly not done by the present Bill. One clause simply affirmed what the law was on a particular question; another required that the presumption of proof should rest with the tenant and not with the landlord, and that was all the Bill said. He would undertake to show, when the Bill went into Committee—if it ever did find its way there—by Amendments which he intended to propose, that very much greater reforms were required in the Land Act of 1870, and that the present measure did not by any means fulfil the requirements of the case. The important evil in connection with the Land Act of 1870 came into a prominent position this year—he alluded to the circumstances of a tenant being liable to be dispossessed for the nonpayment of one year's rent, although he might be entitled to five or six years' compensation for disturbance, and although the non-payment of rent was probably due to the extravagant rack-rent he was charged by the landlord. In such a case the tenant was, under the Act of 1870, entitled to no redress. That, he thought, was a frightful grievance; and if hon. Members were thoroughly in earnest in reforming the Land Laws they

  261
  would introduce such a reform into the present Bill. There was another evil in connection with the present system of tenant right which was entirely overlooked by the Bill. According to the tenant right system of Ulster, where the landlords had persistently and continuously charged an extravagant rent, the result was that tenants would get a very small compensation indeed on disturbance. But if, on the other hand, the landlords had been charging a moderate rent, they would get a very high price for their interest in the land, as had already been pointed out by the hon. Member for Toughal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna.) On the estate of the Duke of Abercorn, the interest of the tenant reached as much as the fee-simple of the land. On the other hand, there were landlords who had been charging an exorbitant rent, and instead of getting, as upon the Duke of Abercorn's estate, something like the value of the fee simple of the property, the unfortunate tenant was kept on the verge of poverty all his life; and when he endeavoured to sell his interest, he probably only got £5, £6, or £7 an acre for it, which was not more than a fourth, fifth, or sixth of the value of the freehold. He regretted that the Bill had not been drawn up more in the interests of the tenants than of the landlords, considering that hitherto the landlords had been extortionate and unreasonable. He hoped the Bill would be read a second time, because, after all, it did reform the Act of 1870; but if it ever went into Committee he should consider himself bound to propose such Amendments as would make it a much more valuable Bill than it was at present.
  MR. O'CLERYwished to support the second reading of the Bill, in the hope that the principle involved in it would be extended to the rest of Ireland, and also in order to show thereby his action, as representing a South-Eastern constituency, that there was no jealous or sectional feeling on the part of the three Provinces in Ireland against the interests of the people of the North. It was too general a practice in the House to endeavour to draw a distinction between the North and other parts of Ireland, and to point out the advantages which the people of the North enjoyed as against the people of the other three Provinces. He certainly did not wish to take from the North any of the ad-
  262
  vantages and privileges they enjoyed; but he earnestly and sincerely hoped that the hon. Member who introduced the Bill would endeavour in some way to extend it to the rest of Ireland. The Land Act of 1870 was supposed to be a panacea for all the ills connected with land tenure in Ireland; but it was now admitted that that Act was in itself faulty, and that it required amendment. He hoped when the Bill went into Committee that the hon. Member in charge of it would himself set an example by-introducing Amendments calculated to make the measure a more comprehensive one than it was at present. Surely, what was hitherto supposed to be the palladium of tenant right in Ulster could not endanger the State if it were extended in an improved form into Munster, Connaught, and parts of Leinster? He hoped there would be no opposition to the second reading of the Bill; because, as far as the Irish Members were concerned—Members from all parts of the country were concerned—their earnest desire was that every Irishman, no matter what class or creed he belonged to, should be united on the question of land tenure.
  MR. LAWsaid, he hoped he might take it for granted, from the silence of the Attorney General for Ireland and the other Members of the Government, that they were going to accept the second reading of the Bill. On this occasion certainly, he thought his right hon. and learned Friend would not have allowed the debate to go on so long as it had done without saying something if he intended to oppose the Bill. Assuming, then, that the Government intended to support the second reading, he considered they might fairly congratulate the country upon the event; because, only on the last occasion when a Bill identical to this was before the House, no less than 16 Members of Her Majesty's Government voted against it. They could not say, as the noble Earl at the head of the Government said a few years ago—"A great many things have happened since." Very few things of note had happened since last year; but, whatever might be the reason of the change of feeling, he must congratulate the country on the result, and it might form an argument in favour of the proposition which an hon. Member made to the House the other night, that

  263
  it tended to bring the Government more in harmony with the feeling of the country. Perhaps the same thing would take place more frequently if Parliaments were only a bit shorter than they were. He could not regard it as altogether accidental that a Bill which was detrimental when it was proposed at this time 12 months ago should now be accepted by the Attorney General for Ireland. He did not think that his right hon. and learned Friend was one of the speakers last year; but he certainly voted against the Bill, as did also the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the Attorney General and Solicitor General for England. Therefore, it was comforting to see that this change should have come over the Government, and that a Bill calculated to secure to some extent the tenant right of the Ulster farmers should be blandly accepted to-day, in place of being somewhat strongly opposed and voted down, as it was last year. At the same time, he was bound to say that there had been no change of opinion on the part of the noble Lord the Member for Donegal (the Marquess of Hamilton). He supported the Bill last year, and was going to do so again to-day. Whether there had been any change of opinion on the part of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Leslie), who moved the rejection of the Bill last year, he did not know; but he assumed that the hon. Baronet would also go with the tide, and that he was willing to allow the Bill to be read a second time; albeit, that he might have some conscientious qualm about the Eighth Commandment, inasmuch as the measure involved the robbery of the landlords' property. He could not help noticing there was a considerable change of opinion last night on the matter of the Game Laws, and there had recently been a considerable change of opinion in other respects. Even a considerable advance of opinion had been announced in the other House of Parliament upon the Land Question. He saw upon the other side of the House many hon. Members who voted against the Bill last year. He presumed that they would vote for it this year. This was a very comfortable thing, for they had certainly had no arguments against the Bill, and, as far as it went, that was entirely satisfactory; whether arguments of a different kind were to be sanctioned outside the
  264
  House was another matter. He could not help being reminded that only a week or 10 days ago some gentlemen in Ireland held an entirely different opinion, and that a tenant right meeting was not only broken up, but that blood was shed, and many persons beaten and injured. Hon. Members might suppose, as a question in regard to these proceedings had been asked on that side of the House, that that meeting was held to promote Home Rule opinions. It was nothing of the kind. There was no Home Rule proposition at all, and the meeting was attended by members of the Society of Friends, with a magistrate in the chair, and ministers of all religious denominations present, including the Presbyterian community. There was not the smallest intention of discussing that terrible thing, Home Rule, which created such a sensation in that House. It was purely a tenant right meeting, and being a tenant right it was attacked not by arguments but by bludgeons, and all the apparatus necessary for holding it was broken down. He was glad to find that all rational arguments against tenant right had been given up; but he was not glad to find that the argument of the bludgeon and physical force had been substituted, or that it had been resorted to in the interests of anybody. He did not suppose for a moment that Her Majesty's Government were responsible for these proceedings; but the matter was worth inquiring into by his right hon. and learned Friend, in order to see whether a purely social question could be discussed in Ireland without their political opponents interfering with the meeting with bludgeons for the purpose of breaking it up. It was satisfactory to find that the Bill had been accepted by Her Majesty's Government. The acceptance of it now was the more remarkable, because it was not only rejected last year by a large majority, but the hon. Members on the other side of the House had always rejected and refused a measure which was in substance the same as this. So far as the measure itself was concerned, he thought it was defective in being confined to Ulster. In its earlier stages, when a similar Bill was first proposed to the House in 1875, strong language was applied to it, and it was treated as a wild and revolutionary measure. He was glad to find that progress had since been made in investi-

  265
  gating the subject; that black, after all, was not so very black, but that something was to be said even for the tenant right of the Ulster farmers. But he could not help thinking that the sudden conversion of Her Majesty's Government was connected in some way with something that had happened, or was likely to happen, in 1880. He would not put the matter further than that, neither would he ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General or the Chief Secretary for Ireland to re-consider their opinions. He hoped that those right hon. Gentlemen had not hastily given in their allegiance to this measure, but had modified their opinions upon conviction. At the same time, he could not but recollect the language used by the Chief Secretary last year, when he said that "he could not conceive any worse system of land tenure than was involved in the Ulster custom." Those who knew Ulster best knew well that the Ulster custom was of the greatest benefit to the landlords as well as to the tenants. It made the landlord's rent secure, and it induced the tenant to improve; and the country was considerably interested in a system being adopted which induced the cultivator of the soil liberally and freely to expend his capital on the improvement of the soil. The difficulty in these bad times was the uncertainty as to whether the tenant would be allowed to go on at the rent at which he held his farm, or whether his landlord was to increase his rent. Differences on these subjects would always, of course, arise between the most honest men; but there should be some means of reconciling those differences. The tenants wanted to be secured against—under the name of raising the rent—their being deprived of the interest they had acquired in the soil by their improvements. In conclusion, he could only repeat that he congratulated Her Majesty's Government, from the semi-assurance which they had received by their silence, on the considerable progress they had made on this subject, though, from whatever side of the House a measure of this kind was brought in, he should support it; and he only wished that it could be extended to the tenants in the South and West of Ireland. He thanked Her Majesty's Government, by anticipation, for what they were
  266
  going to do, and he should not despair of their accepting a larger measure if pressed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)congratulated hon. Members upon the moderate tone which had substantially characterized the entire debate. He was glad to find that his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Law) could be induced to thank Her Majesty's Government for anything. The hon. Member for Dungannon seemed very much afraid that the Bill would pass, and had endeavoured to wave a red flag in every part of the House to arouse opposition to it if possible.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he had offered no opposition. He had urged upon Her Majesty's Government to pass the second reading of the Bill, and he had himself supported the measure.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)admitted that that was so; but observed that the tone in which the hon. Member's remarks were made would be best expressed by the quotation—
  "Willing to wound and yet afraid to strike,
  Just hint a doubt and hesitate dislike."
  The hon. Gentleman characterized the Bill as a miserable Bill, and yet said he was going to support the second reading. Under these circumstances, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) was not pro-pared to qualify a single word he had said in reference to the hon. Member. Perhaps the attitude assumed by the hon. Gentleman was reasonable enough, for he was credited, according to common reputation, with having a kind of unrecognized position in Ulster as a Party manager, who combined Whigs, Radicals, and Home Rulers against the Conservative Party. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) did not know whether that was the fact or not. He had heard the statement repeated over and over again; and whether the hon. Member was in that delicate position or not he would leave as a matter for history to decide. Then, again, the hon. Member for Coleraine (Mr. D. Taylor), who always spoke with moderation and good sense, was not anxious to settle the question. For some reason or other the hon. Member seemed to think that it was convenient not to settle the question, or to allay the anxiety that prevailed in regard to it. Accordingly, the

  267
  hon. Member on the very first day of the Session, having introduced his annual Bill on the subject, postponed the second reading until the 7th of July, in the hope, probably, that something would interfere to prevent it from being Brought on at all. [Mr. D. TAYLOR said, he had put down the Bill for the only day he could get.] Of course, the hon. Gentleman was right in bringing his Bill forward whenever he thought proper. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman could have chosen an earlier day; but, in fact, he had chosen the very last day on which he could bring it forward. There was only one other remark he wished to make upon the debate, and it had reference to the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), who seemed rather anxious that someone should charge him with Communism. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) would certainly not do so, nor did he think it necessary to say anything even in the mildest disparagement of the hon. Member. He had been asked what the position of the Government was in connection with the debate. Now, this was not exactly the same Bill that was presented to the House last year, and the conditions in which it was presented varied in atleast one important particular. When the Bill of last year was brought forward it was pointed out that, intentionally or unintentionally, it omitted a reference to the fact of the diversity of the usages in the Province of Ulster, and referred to the Ulster tenant right as one single thing which was capable of accurate definition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had said that that definition was perfectly impossible; and, consequently, the words used in the Land Act were "the usages prevalent in the Province of Ulster." Those words were also carefully introduced in the drafting of the present Bill; and, therefore, it was different from the Bill of last year. The circumstances in which it was introduced were also different in respect to the important 3rd clause. Last year a Bill was introduced which dealt separately with that topic; and, consequently, the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) could not then claim that his was the only Bill purporting to deal with the subject. He thought the word "district" required greater clearness of definition, and that the
  268
  power of rebutting the onus cast on the owner should not be limited as it was in the clause. He was not in favour of the 2nd clause relating to the estate office rule; and he thought the hon. Member for Tyrone would have done well not to complicate the measure with that matter. As to the 3rd clause, affecting tenant right at the termination of leases, the hon. Member for Coleraine (Mr. D. Taylor) said it would remove great heartburnings, and others had pointed out the relief it would effect. That was a clause which he should not, and which the Government did not in previous Sessions oppose, although it might be necessary to introduce changes in Committee. He should assent to the second reading of the Bill, reserving further criticism to a future stage.
  MR. P. MARTINcongratulated the Government upon the temperate speech of the Attorney General for Ireland; and he congratulated the right hon. and learned Gentleman also that, after his recent visit to Ireland, and after having ascertained what the public opinion of Ireland was, he had the boldness to cast aside the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and to make a statement in direct contravention of everything that had been heard up to the present moment from that right hon. Gentleman. That was shown in a very forcible manner when they considered who it was who opposed the Bill last year. The speech on behalf of Her Majesty's Government was made on that occasion by the Chief Secretary, who spoke of the Bill in as contemptuous terms as if he had been speaking of a measure introduced by any hon. Member below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House. He spoke of it as a Bill that wholly ignored the just rights of the landlords. He deprecated the introduction of measures of such a character, which proposed to make over to the tenant the fruits of the landlord's property, and he made use of another argument against the Bill—namely, that the House which passed the Land Act of 1870 had resolved that it should be the end of the agitation. The right hon. Gentleman went on to condemn in strong terms the constant attempts that were made in the House to unsettle the question, and declared that the question itself was one that had been settled by Parliament. He said, further, that the Ulster custom was the means of dimi-

  269
  nishiug the capital employed by the tenant in the cultivation of the land; and he believed that if there was one thing more than another to which exception might be taken in the interests of the consumers and producers of Ireland it was the Ulster tenant right custom. The right hon. Gentleman went on to speak of the Ulster tenant right custom in strong terms of reprobation; and now that the Attorney General for Ireland had the courage to throw over all the opinions expressed by the Chief Secretary, he suggested that there were differences between the present Bill and that of last year. If any fair person examined the Bill he would find that the substance of it was the same as that of the measure of last year, and that if the Bill of last year unsettled the Land Act of 1870 this Bill did exactly the same thing. Now, with all due respect to the Attorney General for Ireland, he did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was right in the criticism he had bestowed on the present Bill, as compared with that of last year. It was the same as the Bill of last year; and he would like to know why there was an indication given that the Government would not give their consent to the 2nd clause of the Bill—the most important part of it? If Her Majesty's Government intended to do anything of the kind, he thought it would have been far more reasonable for them to have boldly declared that they did not intend to give their consent to the passing of the Bill. He trusted that from the fair statement which they had heard from the Attorney General for Ireland, that when the constituencies became alive to what was really intended to be done in Committee, they would find that the Government had made as much advance in tenant right education in a fortnight as they had advanced from 1870 to the present time. He must say that there had been a great advance on both sides of the House on this question. They had had a concession on the part of both front Benches that the Ulster tenant right custom was a wise and beneficial custom, which was to the interests alike of landlord and tenant. They had had the concession made that the Land Act was not final, and that the time had now come when they should examine and correct that Act, and when what was intended to be the true pur-
  270
  pose of the Act should be carried out throughout the entire of Ireland. It would never be permitted that there should exist an exceptional law for the North of Ireland, and another for the South and West of Ireland. They were the subjects of one Sovereign and the subjects of one Empire; and, under these circumstances, he thought nothing could be more disadvantageous to the interests of peace and order in Ireland than that there should be one class of legislation for the Protestant portion of the country and another for the Catholic portion. He was sure that Her Majesty's Government, notwithstanding the utterance of the Chief Secretary, would never sanction any such principle. Under the circumstances, he thought they had good reason to be well satisfied with that day's proceedings. It was perfectly manifest that it only required a proper degree of force to be applied to induce Her Majesty's Government to do what it had been said they were willing to do. That influence had been so well applied in the North of Ireland that the Government had conceded the two important provisions of the Bill—the legalization of the tenant right custom, as well as the alteration of the presumption of proof in respect of the custom. He hoped that when Parliament met they would find as the result of the elections a Conservative Government even more willing to listen to reason on this still more important mission affecting the Irish tenantry—the Land Question. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government, having recognized the importance of the Bill, would take care that an early opportunity was afforded for its due consideration in Committee, and that they would use their influence in "another place" to secure that it should become law this Session.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, if the Government gave an early day for the Committee and pushed the Bill through its remaining stages in that House, and also facilitated its passing in "another place," it would be a useful measure to the tenants of the North of Ireland; but if, on the other hand, they were simply content with allowing the second reading to pass, the Bill would be chiefly useful to hon. Members and noble Lords I opposite at the General Election. But he should think that the tenants of the

  271
  North of Ireland would be sharp enough to judge the Government entirely by the result. If the Bill should pass both Houses of Parliament, then the Government would have shown they were in earnest that day. The Attorney General for Ireland, in a rather playful way, badgered the hon. Member for Dungannon (Mr. T. A. Dickson), and seemed to say that he would wish that the Bill should not pass. But he would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the hon. Member for Dungannon had shown a most hearty desire to pass nearly every Land Bill which had been brought into the House, and he did not think that the charge came very gracefully from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He had risen to explain the defeat of many Land Bills, and he had done it very well; but to bring accusations of that kind against Members on the Liberal side of the House, when they had always shown themselves anxious to make every sacrifice to further that movement, he thought foreshadowed a near approach to a General Election. The electors must have recognized that when they brought in good Bills dealing with the West of Ireland and the South of Ireland on this subject they had received little support from the Government side of the House. On the other hand, they on the Liberal side had returned good for evil, and always gave a fair amount of support to Northern Members when they had brought forward measures to deal with this question; and it must be remembered that they had on the Liberal side of the House about twice the number to what there was on the other side; and, therefore, there had been a proportion of two to one who had done what they could to get the Bill passed. He did not anticipate that the Government would bring in a large measure this Parliament for the South and West of Ireland; but, at the same time, he really hoped they would push forward this Bill, and give facilities for the passing of the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had shown that he was in earnest in the matter, for he had chosen a good Wednesday, and he hoped the Government would give complete facilities for the passing of the measure.
  MR. CALLANhad hoped that the hon. Baronet the Member for Monaghan (Sir John Leslie), who he saw in his
  272
  place, would have availed himself of the opportunity to do penance, at least, so far as to retract the hostile observations which he made against the Bill last year, and thus have obviated the suspicion which arose that time, particularly the present, when rumours were abroad of a Dissolution, worked wonders. He congratulated the Attorney General for Ireland, and also his right hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General (Mr. Law), upon the great advance that had taken place in their political opinions on the Land Question. To find the Attorney General for Ireland not only not opposing, but speaking in support of such a Bill as that under consideration, was a feature of the times; and it was a matter of great hope and promise to the Irish tenants that the future Attorney General for Ireland under a Liberal Government should also have spoken in an equally favourable spirit of the case of the Irish tenants. He was surprised, however, at the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland, who sought to escape from a charge of inconsistency on the ground that there had been a change made in the Bill. But he found that in the enacting clauses of the measure no change whatever had been made except in the Preamble of the Bill. The Ulster tenant right custom was this year described as—
  "The usages prevalent in the Province of Ulster which are known and included under the denomination of the Ulster Tenant Eight Custom, and the legality of which was established by the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870."
  But that was a mere difference of phraseology; and he thought, if they were paying for it in the form of a telegram, they would adopt the shorter title. The object was to compel the bad landlords of Ulster—of whom he was sorry to say there were so many specimens in the present Parliament—to do what the good landlords did, such as those who had done so much for the counties of Down and Donegal. He congratulated the Government and the Attorney General on having, by their attitude, repudiated the action of their supporters the other day. The Government showed by the Bill that they were in favour of the claims of the Ulster tenants, in favour of which a meeting was held the other day in County Armagh, when it was assailed by an Orange mob. The

  273
  hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) had described the Chief Secretary for Ireland as the principal opponent of the Bill last year. Now, that speech did not make the same impression on his mind. The hon. Baronet the Member for Monaghan (Sir John Leslie) had stated last year that he regarded that Bill as designed to destroy the rights of the tenants of Ulster. Last year he moved the rejection of the Bill on that ground. If the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. New-degate) had been in the House, he would have said that was language which he might have used towards the Jesuits. [Coming to the question of the abolition of the office rules, the hon. Member road extracts from them, and pointed out some of an exceptionally objectionable character, such as the one requiring that a couple should get the written consent of the landlord before they could get married.] He had opposed the 2nd clause, because he said that it claimed the right for the tenant, not only to sell what was his own, but also to sell what was the property of another, and the hon. Baronet said he had opposed it on the ground that it "legalized theft." Now, surely on this occasion the hon. Baronet would not neglect his duty, and vote for a Bill which "legalized theft."
  MR. MACARTNEYrose to speak, when——
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member had already exhausted his right of speaking.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday 13th April.

ROAD DEBTS ON ENTAILED ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 95.]
(Colonel Drummond. Moray, Sir William Edmonstone.)
ROAD DEBTS ON ENTAILED ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 95.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Colonel Drummond Moray.)
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had no desire to oppose the measure; but, as it had only been delivered that morning, and being very obscurely expressed, he would like to be informed what was its object?
  COLONEL DRUMMOND MORAYsaid, the object of the Bill was simply to put the roads and bridges which were made prior to the Roads and Bridges Act of 1831 on the same footing as those which were made subsequently to the passing of that Act. In many districts of Scotland, especially in thinly-populated parts, the proprietors of land through which turnpike roads were made gave their personal security to the parties who provided the necessary funds. The making of roads was a public benefit, as well as a benefit to the proprietor; and as long as tolls continued no occasion had arisen for any claim being made on those who had guaranteed the money. Since, however, the passing of the Road Act 1878, it had happened in numerous instances that the Debt Commissioners treated the debt as only about one-half, and had called upon those who had guaranteed the money to make the same good. Where an estate was held in fee simple, it was in the power of the proprietor to borrow money and charge it on the estate; but, according to the Act of 1878, that could not be done on entailed estates for such roads and bridges as had been made prior to 1831. It was only, therefore, to put roads and bridges made prior to 1831 on the same footing as those made subsequently that the present Bill had been brought forward.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

MOTIONS.
  IRISH CHURCH ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    MR. PLUNKET MR. PLUNKET moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend "The Irish Church Act, 1869," and to provide further compensation to certain persons being priests and deacons of the late Established Church of Ireland.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he did not think it was reasonable for the hon. and learned Member to expect that leave should be given to introduce the Bill without some explanation of its provisions. He should feel inclined to oppose the Motion unless some such explanation was offered.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he did not make any statement, because it was practically the same Bill which he had an opportunity of explaining to the House last year, and which was then printed and circulated. He had another reason, and that was the very unusual course pursued, under such circumstances, by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), of putting down a Notice of opposition to the introduction of this Bill. The Bill did not in any way challenge or reverse the policy of the Act of 1869, or confer any endowment on the Irish Church. It simply sought to deal with the cases of certain individual clergymen, who had been subjected to a serious wrong under the provisions of that Act. It proposed that curates and incumbents who had thus suffered should receive compensation. Those men, whose case he stood there to advocate, had suffered a very serious and grievous personal wrong—as great as any personal wrong could be—and this Bill simply proposed to do an act of justice and of charity to them. It was right to explain that the clergy of the Irish Church who had joined it subsequent to the time when the Act of 1869 came into force would receive no advantage whatever under its provisions. The principle of the Bill had already been approved by many hon. Members sitting on both sides of the House; and he thought it a very serious thing that English Members should show a disposition to oppose or talk out a measure of this nature, the object of which was to repair great personal injury done to men who, when they joined the Irish Church, thought it "within the range of practical politics" that they would be sure of a small but decent livelihood, and of the means of respectably supporting their families. This Bill would simply enable them to bring their claims before the Commissioners of the Irish Church Fund, out of which the Government had already devoted large sums for the purpose of developing Intermediate and University Education in Ireland, and recently for the purpose of relieving distress in that country. For several reasons he did not resist the Government proposal to appropriate the Church Surplus to these objects; but he thought there could be no objection to a small portion of the surplus—say, £200,000 or £300,000—being now applied to the purposes to which he had
    276
    referred. He could not help again saying that he regretted that hon. Members, before his Bill had been printed and circulated, should have undertaken to oppose it. It was necessary, in order to relieve hardship of the greatest severity—but, certainly, unintentional severity—consequent on the passing of the Act of 1869; and, as a matter of fair play and justice, he hoped to be allowed the opportunity on another occasion of laying the case fully before the House.
    MR. SYNANsaid, he did not think the House should refuse to extend to the hon. and learned Gentleman the usual courtesy of allowing him to introduce his Bill; but he gave him Notice that there was no promise thereby implied on his part to support, directly or indirectly, the second reading of the Bill. He was thoroughly aware of the facts of the case, and also of the circumstances under which it was proposed to relieve a number of the clergy of the Disestablished Church of Ireland. When the Belief of Distress (Ireland) Bill was before the House, he pointed out that it would be a waste of the Surplus Fund to devote it to any such purpose; and he was afraid that if it were encroached upon for the purposes of this Bill it would be still further wasted.
    MR. DILLWYNalso urged that the House should allow the Bill to be introduced; but he thought its provisions would need careful scrutiny.
    MAJOR NOLANthought that if the eases of those clergy who had suffered from the disestablishment of the Church had been brought before the House in a Resolution instead of in a Bill, as intended, the House would be much more desirous of acting generously to those men who had sustained injury; but his opinion was that, in the majority of cases, they had received no serious injury. It was most unusual to oppose a Bill on its first reading; and he hoped, therefore, the hon. and learned Member's Bill would be allowed to be read.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought that the hon. and learned Member who had charge of the Bill was an ornament to the House, and a fair opponent ought to be allowed to have it read a first time. At the same time, he did not remember that the hon. and learned Member, who now showed such solicitude for the Irish disestablished clergy, had ever stood up in the

    277
    interests of those poor unfortunate military officers who, on the plea of making openings for the advancement of officers in the Army, had been dismissed the Service, and had their professional hopes destroyed, without compensation for their losses, though done for the efficiency of others, in order to secure such a flow of promotion as would maintain the Army in a state of efficiency. He hoped that in future the hon. and learned Member would be found supporting the claims of those officers, who were quite as much entitled to compensation as those clergymen who had already been liberally rewarded.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he did not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Gal way (Major Nolan), when he said that the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin was entitled to have his Bill read a first time without any explanation of any sort. He had no wish to prevent the hon. and learned Member from proceeding with his Bill; but he wished to point out that the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway were not based upon precedents of that House.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINprotested against the doctrine that a Member was guilty of any discourtesy in opposing a Bill on the first reading. He did not wish to oppose the Bill; but as his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had a Notice of opposition to it on the Paper he thought some explanation of its objects was advisable.
    MR. SHAWdesired to impress on his hon. and learned Friend that if this Bill should reach another stage it would be desirable that he should place before the House some more definite statement than he had done. For his part, he did not feel in a position to say that he would oppose the Bill on the next stage, because he was aware that a large number of persons in Ireland thought they had a grievance in this matter, and they referred especially to some fund which they said belonged, rightly to them, but which, in the confusion of Disestablishment, was laid hold of, and they had never been able to recover it.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to amend "The Irish Church Act, 1869," and to provide further compensation to certain persons being priests and deacons of the late
    278
    Established Church of Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PLUNKET, Sir ARTHUR GUINNESS, Mr. MAURICE BROOKS, Mr. EWART, and Mr. KAVANAGH.
    Bill presented, and road the first time. [Bill 100.]

    CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. JAMES LOWTHER, Bill for taking the Census in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JAMES LOWTHER and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 101.]
    House adjourned at Four o'clock.