LEAVE. FIRST READING.

HC Deb 07 April 1881 vol 260 cc890-940

MR. GLADSTONE

Mr. Speaker, in addressing myself, Sir, to the exposition of, I think, the most difficult and complex question with which in the course of my public life I have ever had to deal, I do feel at least some satisfaction in exchanging the dreary work of repression in which we have been engaged for nearly the whole of the past three months for legislation which, at all events, we hope will be of an improving and reforming character. At the same time, I cannot but contrast the circumstances in which we address ourselves to this task with the happier circumstances of the year 1870, when the Government last attempted to deal with this subject. We are obliged now to enter on the consideration of a question above all things requiring tranquillity, impartiality, and strict balance of mind in the midst of a state of things in Ireland, which I do not wish to characterize by any strong language, and which is now happily in course of mitigation, but which, at the same time, we cannot call less than a disturbed state of things—a state of things so disturbed as undoubtedly to have influenced the minds of men, not less seriously, perhaps, than the real and permanent merits of the question. It is important, Sir, at the outset to consider what are the grounds on which the Government are of opinion that we ought now to proceed to legislate on Irish land. I am bound to say that there are certain of those alleged or supposed grounds which I must at once emphatically disclaim. It is commonly said that the iniquity of the Irish Land Laws is a main reason for legislating on Irish land. Now, Sir, equity and iniquity may be in great part comparative; but I must say that, if we are to proceed on that principle of comparison, I think it is an exaggeration to describe the Land Laws of Ireland as iniquitous. The Land Laws of England are laws under which, at any rate, this country has lived, has remained contented, has made extraordinary progress; but the Land Laws of Ireland chiefly differ from the Land Laws of England in the very special provisions which they present to us on behalf of the tenant. Neither, Sir, can I say that I think that the more extreme plans which have lately been broached in Ireland, and which have been largely commended to the notice, to the judgment, and to the passions of those who had to consider them, constitute in themselves any very valid reason for our approaching practically the consideration of the case. Those schemes, Sir, I must frankly say, have constituted in the eye of the Government a main difficulty in approaching it. I do not wish to ascribe to any hon. Member of this House, or to any proposers of those schemes out-of-doors, a consciousness of their character and tendency such as I consider them to be. But, speaking of many of those plans quite apart from the motives and views of those who propose them, I am bound to say that it passes my ability to distinguish them from schemes of public plunder. I hold it to be an occasion of just praise to the people of Ireland in general that those who have been engaged in examining into the Land Question do not ascribe to that people a participation in views which can be so characterized. In the 3rd paragraph of the Report of the Bessborough Commission the Commissioners thus describe the moderate views of the tenant farmers of Ireland. They say— The tenant farmers of Ireland declare that they do not desire the expropriation of the landlords or the confiscation for their own benefit of the property of others; but that they do desire to cultivate their farms in security, and to receive the full profits of their industry while rendering a fair rent for the land they occupy to those whose means have been invested in it. And I rejoice to think that, such being their views, we have a fair and a broad basis on which we may hopefully proceed. Well, Sir, neither, I am bound to say, should we think it just to propose legislation on this great matter on the ground, whether expressed or implied, of general misconduct on the part of the landlords of Ireland. On the contrary, as a rule, they have stood their trial, and they have, as a rule, been acquitted. The Report of the Bessborough Commission, which certainly is not deficient in its popular sympathies, in its 10th paragraph declares that the greatest credit is due to the Irish landlords for not exacting all that they by law are entitled to exact; and it likewise points out with perfect justice that if they had exacted all that they would by law be entitled to exact they would have been guilty of injustice; they would have appropriated the results of their tenants' labours in the improvement of the soil. Again, I find in the 9th paragraph a remarkable statement, which runs as follows:— It was unusual," that is to say, in Ireland, "to exact what in England would have been considered a full or fair commercial rent. Such a rent over many of the larger estates, the owners of which were resident and took an interest in the welfare of the tenants, it has never been the custom to demand. The example has been largely followed; and is to the present day rather the rule than the exception in Ireland. But while it is satisfactory thus to indicate the good conduct of the great proportion of the landlords, there are other features of the case on which we do arrive at the conclusion that there is a great necessity for searching and comprehensive legislation. The first of these is that old and standing evil of Ireland—that land hunger, which must not be described as if it wore merely an infirmity of the people for it, and really means land scarcity, still continues to import into the agricultural relations of Ireland difficulties with which as yet we have not been able completely to deal. It is this land hunger, aggravated, no doubt, by the bad seasons of the last few years, together with other circumstances, which constitutes the necessity for directing the attention of Parliament to the subject of Irish land legislation. I am bound, Sir, to add, as a principal author of the Land Act of 1870, that defects have been developed in that Act which have seriously marred the completeness of its operation. Some of those defects undoubtedly—I will not dwell on details, it would be invidious—are due to changes which the Bill underwent after it had left this House, and in which we were constrained reluctantly to acquiesce. But others of them, I am bound to say, were involved in the original construction of the measure; and even if it had passed into law in the same shape as it passed this House, it would not have been completely adequate for its purpose. I hope, Sir, it will not be thought harsh or unjust if, after the tribute I have striven to render to the Irish landlords at large, I mention, as a third and conclusive reason for this legislation, that a limited number of that class have been distinguished by conduct different from the predominating number. There have been, Sir, both arbitrary raisings of rent and harsh and cruel evictions. It may seem hard, where there are so many landlords with whom we have not a shred of title to interfere, were it possible to sever their case from other cases around them, that they must be liable to interference on account of the acts or omissions of the few; but so it is, and so it must be, under the iron necessity of public affairs. I remember an illustration I may, perhaps, be allowed to give which occurred long ago; it belongs to the period of my early life, though I think it bears a marked analogy to the case now before us. I refer to the time when, in 1833, Parliament, by a very wise and great act of legislation, deter- mined on the emancipation of the negroes of the West Indies, and introduced a period of six years during which there was to prevail a system of what was called apprenticeship, substantially founded on freedom, but coupled with a qualified and limited degree of compulsory labour. Do not let it be supposed by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland that I am comparing the relation of the West Indian planters to the negroes, with that of the Irish proprietors to their tenantry—it is only for a limited purpose that I am quoting the illustration. The system worked admirably well throughout almost the whole of the West Indies. Those who had been owners of slaves, and were still owners of estates, entered into the spirit of the law, and the progress made under the system of apprenticeship was very gratifying. But unhappily in one or two islands, especially in Jamaica, there was a knot of men who could not forget or sever themselves from the vicious habits of their early life, and contrived to carry the traditions and practices of slavery into the new legal condition which the Legislature meant to be one of freedom. This was discovered by the vigorous philanthropy of Mr. Sturge, who emblazoned it before the people of this country. It entered deep into the hearts of the people; and in consequence of the acts of a few, notwithstanding the good conduct of the many, there was a sharp and sudden interference with the letter of the contract, ending in the unrequited remission of two years of apprenticeship in the West Indies. Well, Sir, I think that, in the same way, some few landlords of Ireland—generally the smaller landlords—have contrived to inflict on their brethren in their own class much dishonour and much inconvenience.

These are the reasons on which we ground the necessity that has led us to come forward and propose to Parliament a measure which we think of great importance. Let us consider, in the first place, what is the guidance to which we might naturally look for our direction in the framing of a Bill upon Irish land. We found in existence when we came into Office a Commission which had been appointed by the former Government—a Commission with extraordinary width and scope—to investigate the working of the Land Acts. The Report of this Commission was sure to be a consider- able element in the consideration of the case. But, at the same time, it would hardly be expected that a Government formed from this side of the House would be content with the sole verdict of that Commission. Partly, therefore, because of the gravity of the case, and partly because we thought it necessary that a body should be appointed which might give its undivided attention to the thorough and searching investigation of the Irish Land Question, Her Majesty was advised to appoint a second Commission, and we have now before us the results of both Commissions. As I stated, the Land Act of 1870 achieved but a partial success. I am compelled to say the same of the Commissions of Inquiry. From the two Commissions we had naturally to expect two Reports; but instead of two Reports there have been a collection—I might say a litter—of Reports; not less than seven in all. One Report of the Duke of Richmond's Commission, signed by a considerable majority, is flanked or backed by another Report of a not inconsiderable minority, including some names of great authority in regard to Irish land. One member of the minority, Mr. Bonamy Price, is the only man—and to his credit be it spoken—who has had the resolution to apply, in all their unmitigated authority, the principles of abstract political economy to the people and circumstances of Ireland exactly as if he had been proposing to legislate for the inhabitants of Saturn or Jupiter. And when I turn to the labours of the Bessborough Commission the process of sub-division is not loss remarkable. There were four Commissioners, of whom two signed a Report which, I must say, is one of the ablest and most interesting I have ever read, though we are far from adopting the whole scheme they recommend. But of these four Commissioners my hon. Friend the Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) has signed a collateral Report, which undoubtedly, in some important particulars, must be regarded as a counter Report. Another—the O'Conor Don—signed a Report of his own, with proposals of enormous scope, more especially for the general purchase of the estates of all willing vendors in Ireland by the Government—a condition which he appeared to make vital and fundamental to any proposal for which he would be responsible. Lastly, there is, completely separate, the Report of Mr. Kavanagh. I will not mention his name in his absence without saying that he is one of the ablest, if not the ablest, Gentleman coming from Ireland I have ever known among the Party opposite. Besides his ability, he is a man of independent mind; and I do not scruple to call him—making allowance for his starting-point—a man of liberal and enlightened feelings. This, then, is the result of the sub-division of the Reports. The more numerous Richmond Commission produced three Reports. The less numerous Bessborough Commission produced four Reports. The total number is seven. We are greatly indebted to the Members of the Commissions for the disinterested pains and great ability with which they have addressed themselves to their task; but our gratitude, I must say, must be mixed with some bewilderment. Although the Commissioners have not been able to lend us the immense assistance which would have been derived from their union in a body of identical recommendation, yet allow me to say that we have derived immense assistance from their Reports. The body of their fundamental recommendations are of the utmost value, because I look not only at the points in which they disagree, but still more at those in which they agree. And what do I find? I find that, setting aside the single Report of Mr. Bonamy Price, the whole body of the Richmond Commissioners and the whole body of the Bessborough Commissioners, without any exception, are agreed in making a recommendation of the most vital importance—I mean the constitution of a Court for the purpose of dealing with the differences between landlords and tenants in Ireland in regard to rent. It is not for me to fix authoritative interpretations on the language of public men; and therefore I think it only fair, after what I have said, to read the recommendation of the Richmond Commission on this subject. It is needless for me to refer to the recommendations of the minority of the Richmond Commission or the recommendation of the Bessborough Commission. They are perfectly clear and unequivocal; but I wish to read to the House what I conceive to be one of the most important portions of the document before us—a short passage from the preliminary Re- port of the Duke of Richmond's Commission. It runs as follows:— Bearing in mind the system by which the improvement and equipment of a farm in Ireland are very generally the work of the tenant, and the fact that a yearly tenant is at any time liable to have his rent raised in consequence of the increased value given to his holding by the expenditure of his capital and labour, the desire for legislative interference to protect him from an arbitrary increase of rent does not seem unnatural. Legislation properly framed to accomplish this end would not be objected to. Now in that passage there is no express mention of the name of a Court; but I think I cannot go wrong in interpreting the passage to mean that and nothing else. In fact, I should say that it must either mean that, or something more; it may be interference, for instance, to give perpetuity of present rents without any increase. Clearly this is not what is meant; but, in pointing to the regulation by a public authority of the rents in Ireland, I conceive that I am making a fair, an impartial, and, I would almost say, a necessary construction of the language of the Commission when I say that we have that Commission, appointed by the late Government, appointed certainly with no special want of regard for the just interests of the landlords, recommending that in the peculiar circumstances of Ireland there shall be legislative interference to protect the tenant from arbitrary increase of rent. I do not know to what extent the Noblemen and Gentlemen who signed that Report had considered the ulterior consequences of the proposition which they thus laid down; but I own it appears to me—and I am not now attempting to saddle them with what I am about to state—that legislative interference for the regulation of rent cannot by any possibility be severed from legislative interference for the regulation of tenure and from the regulation of the principle of tenant right. That, however, is by the way; for I do not attempt to avail myself of the advantage of the authority of this Commission, combined with all the other Commissions upon this great subject, further than I have stated. But it is plain that the independence and the difference of the judgments which have been arrived at by the several Commissions give additional force and weight to the points on which we find them agree.

Now let me state to the House that this subject must be considered to di- vide itself into three branches, with one of which I have little or nothing to do. The first is that which is commonly known to us as Land Law—the whole important group of questions connected with the registry, the transfer, the devolution, and the nature of estates in land. These are matters which, substantially, I shall hardly touch to-night. I mention them now in order that the omission may not be supposed to testify indifference. It is my firm belief that no more valuable gift could be conferred on Ireland than sound and thorough legislation on those subjects: but it is not our work to-night. Everyone will admit that it would not be possible to combine such legislation with the great and complicated subject with which we have now to deal. The two subjects are indeed so far connected that, proceeding on the same principles as we adopted in 1870, we are endeavouring to provide that whatever operations are contemplated by the measure, they shall be placed within the power of limited owners of the soil. Consequently we may set aside limitation of ownership, so far as may be necessary for our purpose. The two great questions which remain are these: in the first place, the relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland; and, in the second place, that important group of questions which I may here gather together under the name of subjects which require advances from the Public Exchequer. These are the two branches of the subject which it will be my duty to open, and I must open them with many apologies, and with a respectful appeal to the indulgence of the House. In dealing with these questions I can hardly hope to be even accurate in detail, still less can I hope to exhibit the numerous provisions of the measure in their due proportion and relative bearing upon the whole subject. I fear that I may be justly open to the reproach both of being prolix and defective in the statement I have to make. But, relying upon the patience of hon. Members, I will do my best to explain the whole spirit and the main provisions of the measure we are submitting to the House. I have never as a Minister felt overwhelmed with as great a sense of the enormous importance of the topics and the propositions involved in it; and there is nothing that can legitimately be done by the Government which we shall hesitate to do for the purpose of promoting such legislation as shall deal effectively with the Land Question in Ireland.

It appears to me that the proposal to create a Court, or to allow of the reference to a Court, of most important and numerous transactions of life between man and man—I mean in a material sense—has become, in the circumstances of Ireland, and with the authorities before us, quite inevitable; and that being so, it is evident that it must be a salient and cardinal proposal of any measure into which it enters. But a question of the greatest importance meets us on the threshold. Is this Court to be compulsory, and, being compulsory, is it to be universal, and therefore perpetual? or is it to be a Court as to which there is to be an option reserved? This question I shall have to argue before the House; but, before arguing it, I will speak of a matter as to which we have the deepest conviction, and with regard to which also I think a great deal of prejudice and misconception prevail—I refer to the subject of assignment, generally known in the language of the "three F's" as Free Sale. In using the word assignment I use the word which I believe is best known to law and to history. As far as I have been able to observe, more objection has been taken to the legislative recognition of assignment in those quarters where objection was likely to be taken than to the other proposals of the Commission—namely, fixity of tenure and fair rents, obtained by the arbitration of a public authority. It appears to me that while this particular proposal has been most objected to, and appears to be the most unpalatable in many quarters, it is distinctly and decidedly the least open to objection in the circumstances of Ireland, and almost absolutely ingrained in the necessities of the case and in the circumstances with which we have to deal. Now let us see whether that is or is not an unreasonable statement. I will speak of that which is assigned as the tenant right of Ireland; and, for the purpose of my argument, the assumption is that every tenant has some right or other in his holding. What are the elements of that right in Ireland? They are more easily traced there than elsewhere. In the first place, you have the unquestioned fact that improvements have been to a larger extent than probably in any other country the work of the tenant himself. Tenant right is the result of these improvements. Secondly, you have this great fact in Ireland—a land hunger coupled with land scarcity. With a supply of land in the market so much less than the demand, you have a state of things in which it is well worth the while of a man, who has not got land as a means of obtaining a regular subsistence and livelihood, to pay for obtaining it. That willingness of the incoming tenant to pay enters distinctly into the interest of the outgoing tenant, so long as he continues the tenant, as something he has to receive. There is also a principle of rarer, but not altogether insensible operation in the circumstances of Ireland—that which may be called the pretium affectionis—the disposition of many an Irishman, even after he has left his country, perhaps driven from it by hard necessity, to find his way back, and, if he can, to settle himself once more on the soil. I may, perhaps, be permitted to mention an instance of this kind—no doubt an extreme instance, but, at the same time, an instance which will help us to see how it is that the tenant in Ireland thinks he has something to transfer for which he has the right to obtain what he can get. A landlord in the West of Ireland had, among other holdings, a rather miserable holding consisting of a small tenement and an acre or two of land, for which he received a rent of five guineas. Repeatedly, as he rode by the spot, it occurred to him that he ought to reduce the rent; but before he had taken any steps in that direction a returned Irishman from America called upon him and said he was very desirous to obtain a plot of land on his estate; he had applied to the tenant of this small holding; the tenant was quite willing to sell, and he was quite willing to buy; and he came to ask the permission of the landlord. The landlord said—"Very well, I have no objection; what are you willing to give?" And the man said he was willing to give £100 for this five-guinea holding. The landlord said, by way of jest—"Then I think I must raise the rent;" but he did not, and the transaction proceeded. Now that was as much a case of pretium affectioni as paying £10,000 or £20,000 for a set of old Sévres or China ware. There are specialities in the case of Irish tenant right. But what I wish to impress upon the House is this—that, apart from those specialities, the principle of assignment is a principle rooted in law. By artificial provisions, introduced into agreements, through commanding position of landlords, assignment has been generally prohibited; but the assignment of the tenant's interest, whatever it be, is a principle, not only of Irish, but of English Land Laws, and of the Land Laws of Europe generally. The Bessborough Commission says— For many generations the great bulk of the land under cultivation in Ireland has been held on small farms under 30 acres, without leases upon parole tenancies from year to year. In these tenancies, by the Common Law, the tenant has always had a right of property which he might dispose of, and which was only determinable subject to conditions, the principal of which was the requirement of six months' notice to quit, recently extended by the Act of 1877 to 12 months. I will quote a few words from a very able, though concise, work of Mr. Richey, a Professor of the University of Dublin, on the Irish Land Laws. He informs us in an early part of that work that yearly tenancies, when they first arose in the 16th century, were commonly called leases for the term of a year and onwards de anno in annum, according to the pleasure of both parties; and he says that the tenant was entitled, as any other owner of an interest in land, upon this yearly holding to sell or sub-let his farm to whom and on what terms he pleased. He then explains how it was that the landlord's consent came to be asked; and he says that, whether the landlord assented or not to the sale, all the interest of the previous tenant passed by the sale to the purchaser. I will quote lastly an extract with which my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has supplied me, from a work of Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, in which it is distinctly laid down that tenants for even a less period than four years, but who are possessed of a certain quantity of interest, may alienate the whole or any part of it unless they are expressly restricted from so doing. A tenant from year to year may therefore assign his term or under-let; but he may not by under-letting grant an interest exceeding his own in point of duration. I am anxious to call attention to the fact that this interest is embodied in the ancient law, because I think that fact meets, in a great degree, the fundamental objection which Gentlemen are apt to take to this period of tenant right. They say it establishes joint proprietorship, which they consider is a bad thing. I do not admit that; but if it does establish a joint proprietorship, I hold that, in the absence of express restrictions, the old law of the country, corresponding, I believe, with the general law of Europe, recognizes the tenant right, and therefore recognizes, if so you choose to call it, joint proprietorship. Well, that being the state of the case, how does it stand under the Land Law of 1870? It stands thus—that before the Land Act of 1870 the tenancy was determinable upon a certain notice at the close of each year, at the sole will of the landlord, and without any other consequence whatever. What the tenant had to assign was so small that the assignment was little worth giving or receiving. But in the Land Act—not, I must own, with a view to fortify the principle of tenant right, but simply with a view to defend the tenant in possession of his holding and to render it difficult for the landlord capriciously to get rid of him—we proceeded to enact a scale of compensation for disturbance, without which the tenant could not be removed. That being so, a valuable consideration was, by the Act of 1870, evidently tacked on to every yearly tenancy in Ireland. And, under the Act of 1870, whether we intended it or not, tenant right has become something sensible and considerable. The actual sale of the tenant right, as, I believe, is observed in a marked manner in the minority Report of the Richmond Commission, has grown and spread in Ireland; and the old idea of the people, running back into times anterior to tenures now prevailing, has in modern circumstances received authority and acquired extension from the legislation of this House. That being so, it ought also to he remembered that the recognition of tenant right is certainly of very great practical convenience, provided it can be restrained from undue interference with the landlord's right—of which I will speak presently. In the first place, it affords a means of valuing improvements by far the simplest, cheapest, and most rapid that can be conceived. The improvements are worth that which it is worth the while of the incoming man to give, and so the matter is disposed of. Nor is it an inconsiderable advantage that the landlord is secured in all his just claims by the existence and recognition of the principle of tenant right. It is admitted to be the first charge on tenant right that the rent shall be paid, and that anything else which the landlord may have to claim against the tenant—as, for instance, in the case of waste—shall be defrayed out of the money received for the tenant right. How does this stand with regard to the Commissions? For I must say that the authority of these Commissions is a very important element, as all will feel, in our consideration of the case. Every one of the Bessborough Commissioners—Mr. Kavanagh with some reluctance, recognized the principle of tenant right. The minority of the Richmond Commission emphatically acknowledges it, and the majority have not said one word against it. So we stand as to authority. But before passing from these recommendations there is one on which I cannot refrain from dwelling for a moment, and that is the immense political advantage that has been found to attend the principle. I do not think we could have a more vivid illustration of this political advantage than the state of distress which prevailed just 12 months ago in the West of Ireland. At that time there was a whole group of counties in which there prevailed extreme distress. In most of these counties that extreme distress was attended with great public danger. I refer particularly, of course, to Mayo and Galway. But there was another county where the distress was hardly by a single shade different from the others, yet where there was at that time no public danger, no public agitation, no disquietude other than the disquietude of humane and Christian-minded men at the sufferings of their fellow-creatures; and that was the county of Donegal. And the only circumstance—for it is one of the wildest counties you have in Ireland—that made it differ, as far as human judgment can be formed, from the counties near it, in Connaught, was the circumstance that in Donegal you had tenant right, while in Mayo and Galway you had not. Well, Sir, objections may be taken to tenant right, and I am not about to propose an unregulated tenant right. It appears to me that it would be very unfair to give legislative force to a tenant without leaving in the hands of the landlord, or of some public authority, the means of securing his own just interest. If a Court is to be called on at the will of the tenant to limit the annual receipt of the landlord, and to fix what, in this Bill, we call a Judicial Rent, then I do not see on what principle you shall say that the tenant right of the tenant is to be subject to no similar and analogous limitation. There are certainly some strong arguments other than the interests of the landlord in favour of that course; for it may be very fairly said that in vain do you cut down the landlord's judicial rent—and I am only assuming that this effect may be to cut down, for in some instances the effect may be to raise it—and take care that the landlords' receipts shall be limited if, with the land hunger and scarcity which prevail in Ireland, you still leave it open to anyone to pay an extravagant sum for tenant right, and thereby to take holdings on the same virtually rack-rented condition. I therefore hold, and we have framed the Bill on that principle, that to recognize duly the power of the landlord or of the Court to raise the rent is the due and just means of preventing the tenant right, which we think to be the just right of the tenant, from passing into extravagance, and from trespassing upon what is the just right of others. We believe that by bringing together, on fair conditions and in fair competition, the right of the tenant to assign, and the right of the landlord to get, what his land is reasonably worth, we shall be able to obtain a result agreeable to justice and agreeable to the interests of both. I have detained the House at some length on this subject, because I am extremely anxious to do what I can for the purpose of showing, in the first place, that there is nothing strange or of an innovating character in the recognition of this principle; secondly, that it is rooted in the history of Ireland, and in the ideas of the Irish people; thirdly, that it is recommended by a multitude of practical advantages; and, lastly, that it need not entail injustice upon anyone.

Now, Sir, I come to the great question which I must constitute the salient point and the cardinal principle of the Bill, the institution of a Court which is to take cognizance of rent, and which, in taking cognizance of rent, will also, according to the provisions of the Bill, not be debarred from taking cognizance of tenure and assignment. The question first to be considered is as I have stated: Shall this Court be an optional Court, or shall it be universal, compulsory, and perpetual? If it is to be an optional Court, there is one vital matter—namely, that we shall be assured in our minds that the option shall be free. If it could be shown that in exercising an option with regard to going into Court an Irish tenant was liable to the same kind of pressure in any degree, either great or small, under which he now lies in the land market when he bids for land, I should say that such an objection would be fatal. But on considering the matter, as well as we can, we do not see that there can be anything to interfere with the perfect freedom of the tenant in this respect. I mean, that if we say that by law an Irish tenant may go into Court, it is impossible for the landlord to bring any intimidation, direct or indirect, to prevent him from doing so. The case is something like this. An infirm man on a public road may be intimidated by a stalwart ruffian. But the presence of the stalwart ruffian will not interfere with the freedom of the infirm man if he sees some policeman on the road; and he would call in the policeman just as freely as if he had been under no fear of the stalwart ruffian. It appears to us that the aid of the Court may be invoked just as freely by the Irish tenant, if there be good reason for giving it an optional character. There is no reason why the policeman should be glued to your side for your whole life. Therefore we say that if the access to the Court be perfectly free, and if the action of the Court and the control of the Court be complete and sufficient, it ought to rest with the tenant to consider, from time to time, whether he should continue in the Court or not. There are other strong reasons for making the Court an optional instead of a compulsory Court.

In the Bessborough Report there is a short passage which says— It seems desirable that, in the future, the same Land Laws should prevail throughout Ireland, and that a yearly tenant, in every part of the Kingdom, should possess the same rights, and be subject to the same obligations. We have not accepted that proposition. It appears to us that there are many weighty pleas to be urged against it. One plea is this. There may be tenants in Ireland who do not desire the interference of the Court. After all that we have heard with regard to the management of many estates in Ireland, I must confess that I believe it to be possible—and even likely—that there may be a considerable number of tenants who would rather be allowed, if they have adequate protection from the law, to conduct their own affairs with their landlords than be compelled to go into Court. Here, again, I call in aid the authority of the Bessborough Commission, for in the 79th paragraph, notwithstanding their recommendation of a system universal and compulsory, they say this— There will probably be estates among those which have been kindly managed, where the large allowances made to improving tenants, the materials given or sold under cost price, and the many other benefits conferred by a good landlord, would be preferred, by some tenants at all events, to fixity of tenure and free sale. They say there that everything like fixity of tenure and free sale might in some cases be sacrificed by the tenant in preference to abandoning the benefits of the relations which exist. I do not exactly adopt those words as they stand; but I think they give important reasons in support of the belief that it is not possible for us at this moment to form a judgment as to what proportion of the tenants of Ireland there may be who would rather keep in their own hands the management of their own affairs than invoke the compulsory aid of a public authority.

But, Sir, I own that it appears to me that there are many circumstances in the case of Ireland which discourage us from an attempt to procure what I may call a dead or mechanical uniformity in the legal condition under which its agriculture is carried on. There is no agricultural country in the world the face of which is so seamed with variety as Ireland. You have, to begin with, all the usual varieties, and you have many varieties that are Irish, and exclusive Irish too. You have the grazing and the tillage farms; you have the large holding and the small; you leave the large proprietor and the small; you have the landlord absentee and the landlord resident; you have the improvements made sometimes by the tenant and the improvements made sometimes by the landlord. For, happily, there are and have been landlords in Ireland who, in the strictest sense, are called improving landlords. You have the leaseholds and you have the annual tenancy; the care-takers of land; lands in conacre, and lands in rundale; you have the lands over-rented through the operation of the great land hunger; you have the lands under-rented through the tradition of many estates, and in certain cases through the desire, and perhaps with the express purpose, of excluding tenant right and assignment. You have the old-fashioned Irish landlord and you have the new-fashioned Irish landlord; and although the old-fashioned Irish landlord was not an impeccable being, yet many of his sins, at least towards his tenants, were sins of omission rather than of commission, and in some respects will bear no unfavourable comparison with what I call the new-fashioned landlord. You have land under middlemen and land without middlemen; you have lessees in perpetuity; and then, above all, you have in Ireland the prevalence of local customs which have taken deep root in the country, and which, in my opinion, we should be incurring a very heavy responsibility by gratuitously endeavouring to wipe away from the face of the land.

All these are very strong reasons, Sir, for making it optional to the tenant to consider whether he shall go into the Court, or whether he shall not. I am bound also to give some other reasons. I have very great doubts indeed whether—if we were, by a compulsory law, to refer the ultimate regulation of every bargain relating to land to a Judicial Commission sitting in Court—any judicial authority you could create would not break down under the weight so imposed upon it. I believe that it would probably prove to be beyond its strength. Then I cannot help saying, though I hope it will not show that I am disloyal to the cause of reform in the Land Laws of Ireland, that there is no country in the world which, when her social relations come to permit of it, will derive more benefit than Ireland from perfect freedom of contract in land. Unhappily she is not in a state to permit of it; but I will not abandon the hope that the period may arrive. After all, what the Irishman wants—and I do not mean to say it is his fault that he has not got it—is the habit of self-government. [Cheers from the Home Rulers.] He wants that which the Scotchman has got—[Cheers and laughter.]—and I hope that by interpolating that objection, I have sufficiently guarded myself against unwarranted deductions. But I say seriously that the Court, after all, though it may be, and I believe is, a right and a needful measure; yet you must not conceal from yourselves the fact that it is one in the form of centralization, referring to public authority what ought to be transacted by a private individual. That may be an infinitely smaller evil than some other evil you may have to contend with, and may be therefore a thing that you ought to embrace with all your heart under the circumstances; but I confess to great doubts whether it is a thing which you ought to stereotype and stamp as far as you can with the seal of perpetuity. But, in any case, it ought not to be a one-sided Court. If a Court is to interfere, it must interfere for the purpose of doing justice. Therefore, speaking generally, we cannot lay down the proposition that it is to interfere for the protection and advantage of the tenant alone. We cannot make those who sit on the seat of justice forsake justice, even with objects in view so high and so important as the objects of Land Reform in Ireland. Well, Sir, if that be so, the proper conclusion is that we should not force anyone into the Court. We should leave the access to it perfectly free; so regulated by public authority that the smallest tenant in Ireland may go into it as fearlessly as if he were the greatest. Another conclusion is that we should not by compulsion insure the perpetuity of what is, after all, an abnormal system—its perpetuity under all circumstances, however much they may have changed from those which now prevail, and however closely they may approximate to the circumstances of other countries where the relation of landlord and tenant require no such means to be employed in order to their just and satisfactory regulation. We therefore propose that the entrance into the Court should be an optional entrance.

And now I will proceed to give you the words, which I hope will be perfectly clear, relating to those propositions which we justly consider the most vital and central portion of the Bill. Every tenant now existing in Ireland may call in the Court. The first purpose will be to find a "judicial rent;" that rent will be upon the basis of a fair rent; and we have thought it our duty to endeavour to grapple with the very difficult task—where none of the Commission show any particular readiness to deal with it—of giving to the Court some guidance in its efforts to arrive at a fair rent. The words themselves will be found in the Bill; but I may describe the principle of them. Possibly they may be open to amendment; but I may describe the principle of them as containing a reference to a solvent tenant on the one side, and on the other side a due regard to the value of the tenant right. When the Court has fixed the judicial rent, that judicial rent will carry with it a statutory term of 15 years, during which there can be no change. During that period there can be no eviction of the tenant without leave of the tenant or the Court, except it be for breach of certain specified covenants, or for the non-payment of rent. During that period, there will be no power of resumption by the landlord, even with the leave of the Court, no matter what may have taken place as between the landlord and the tenant, or however grave the plea for resumption may be. In regard to the more purely legal aspects of the Bill—the event of breach of covenants, or for non-payment of rent—the process which will be adopted will be more fully explained, as the Bill progresses, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for Ireland. The general idea is that there can only be a compulsory sale of the tenant right in the case of a breach of the conditions of the tenant right within the period to which I have referred; and at the end of that period the tenant will, of course, give up his holding. The tenant right may be sold, according to the provisions of the Bill, at any time within the period at the end of which, under the present law, the tenant would be finally turned out of his holding. The effect of our proposal will be that the tenant will have allowed to him for the sale of his holding all the time which, in the event of non-payment of rent, is allowed for the contingent resumption of his holding upon the discharge of all pay- ments to be made him. At the close of the statutory term of 15 years application may be made for the renewal of this time, and that application may be made toties quoties until a certain contingency, which I will presently describe, arises in the tenancy. When it is renewed, the conditions as to eviction will remain the same; but after the expiration of the next term of 15 years the landlord may, with the approval of the Court, and for certain strictly defined and sufficient reasons, resume possession. This right of resumption by the landlord will, when the holdings are in Court, be subject entirely to the judgment of the Court, because we fully recognize the importance of clear definition in an Act of this kind; but the cases which we recognize as fulfilling the definition of reasonable and sufficient are these. They must be cases either referring to the good of the holding, the good of the estate, or the benefit of the labourers in respect of their cottages, gardens, or allotments. The renewal of the judicial rent may take place, toties quoties, at the end of each of these terms, as long as the tenancy continues to be what in the Bill we define as "a present tenancy." I wish to draw the particular attention of the House to these terms, because, as we intend, a present tenancy does not cease to be a present tenancy simply on the change of the tenant, and the only mode in which it can pass from a present to a future tenancy are these. If there be a breach of covenant, and upon that an eviction, the land passing back to the landlord, then a new tenancy arises; if there be reasonable cause for resumption by the landlord, a new tenancy arises. We have also, under the Bill, reserved to the landlord what is called a right of pre-emption in case the tenant wishes to sell his tenant right. Not that the landlord can compel the tenant to do so; but if the tenant wishes to sell his tenant right the landlord may, under the authority of the Court, apply for it and purchase it. If the landlord does not, the tenant becomes again the possessor of the holding. But we provide that his becoming the possessor of the holding shall not constitute any future tenancy within the 15 years after the passing of the Act. Therefore there will be no future tenancy created this way within the first 15 years after the passing of the Act. In cases where what is called the "English system" prevails, or, as we define it, where the holding has been maintained and improved by the landlord, we have thought that justice demands that the landlord should not be brought into a new and exceptional state of things which really has no application to the relation which subsists between him and the tenant. We have left a large power of equity between the landlords and their tenants; but I must make an explanation to the House on this point with reference to the action of the Court, because it is one of great practical importance. A very lively and just susceptibility has been shown by Representatives from Ireland as to the effect of the Act in cases where proceedings with a view to eviction have been commenced; and it has been said that if you take the cases of excessive rent which the tenant has been unable to pay, it would be extremely hard that such a tenant should be deprived of the benefit which this Act proposes to confer on tenants as a class. What we propose, therefore, is substantially that where the process has been completed, and the redemption period has expired, there should be no interference; but where the proceeding is pending, where it has been commenced, we provide that the application of any tenant in Ireland, who is under this process, to the Court on the first day of its sitting shall have the same right as if it were made on the first day of the passing of the Act. The effect of that will be virtually to stay the proceedings to this extent—that it will allow a tenant to go before the Court and obtain the fixing of the judicial rent, and he will thus obtain a tenant right, whether fixed or not, of which he will not lose the benefit on account of any proceedings taken before the passing of the Act.

I think, Sir, that is a tolerably fair account of the main provisions relating to the action of the Court, with the exception of what I shall call the "judicial lease," which I shall explain by-and-bye. It is more important that I should next submit to the House the case of what, in the Bill, we call "ordinary tenancies;" because, as I have said, we do not think it desirable to make a complete holocaust of free contract in Ireland, but to allow those who are satisfied with the present system to remain under it. We do not, therefore, deal with ordinary tenancies held by those who have no wish to avail themselves of the altered circumstances.

I will now describe the changes made in their case quite irrespective of any application to the Court. The ordinary tenant will, like the tenant under the Court, be invested from the passing of the Act with the right of assignment. He will be able to sell his tenant right. Of course, the landlord will have the right to refuse the purchaser to whom the tenant wishes to assign his right; but only upon reasonable grounds; and in defining and determining these reasonable grounds, we have endeavoured to follow, as well as we could, the practice that now prevails in Ulster, and which is hardened into a sort of inflexible and recognized rule. The landlord, when the tenant desires to quit, will have the right of pre-emption of the tenant right at a rate fixed, but not by himself. He may buy in the open market, or he may apply to the Court to have the price fixed by the Court. When the price of the tenant right is fixed by the Court, in all cases where the holding has been improved by outlay on the part of the landlord the amount of such improvements may be treated as a set-off against the tenant right, provided the landlord has never been remunerated by the rent paid or otherwise. I need not say that the landlord's claim will, according to the universal practice in Ireland, be satisfied out of the purchase money. Ordinary annual tenancies may be bequeathed; but they must be bequeathed to one person only. Of course the House will, I imagine, readily understand the object of that provision.

I now come to an important point of the Bill which refers to cases in which landlords propose frequent increases of rent. In cases of that kind the landlord may propose to the tenant an increase of rent; and if the tenant accepts the increase the statutory term ensues, and the rent cannot again be increased for 15 years. That is to amend one of the flaws of the Land Act under which unduly increased rents have been placed on the shoulders of tenants. But if the tenant refuse an increase of rent he may choose between three alternatives: he may sell his tenant right, in which case increased rent demanded will serve to diminish the price he will receive for it. But in cases where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the rent was below a fair rent, the landlord shall be entitled to plead that fact as a set-off against any claims of the tenant in respect of the increase; and the Court may dispose of any part, or even the whole, of that increase. We have introduced a provision of this nature into the Bill, the effect of which may be stated as follows. If the landlord desires to raise the rent, he will be able to do so, presuming that the tenant will agree to pay rather than leave the holding. If, on the other hand, the landlord does not desire to keep the tradition of his property, but wishes to keep the rents below a value corresponding to the idea of a fair rent, he shall not be liable to have that eaten up by its going to increase the tenant right; but when the tenant right is claimed, he may establish the fact that the rent is below a fair rent, and have the difference set off against the claims for tenant right. So much for the tenant's first option; he may sell his tenant right and ask the landlord ten times the increase. His second option is that he may fall back upon compensation for disturbance and compensation for improvements. The third option he may exercise is that he may, upon demand for an increased rent, exercise his right to go into Court and demand the fixing of a judicial rent. If he accepts the increase in the rent, he obtains, ipso facto, what we call a statutory terra of 15 years. If he exercises his option in favour of taking compensation for disturbance, then comes the change we propose to make. We propose to keep the scale of compensation for disturbance, but to raise the rate with regard to large holdings. I had better perhaps read to the House the scale as it will now stand. First of all, we strike out all valuation in regard to compensation for disturbance, and we propose that compensation for disturbance shall be regulated entirely by the amount of rent. If the rent is under £30, the compensation that may be given for disturbance shall never exceed seven years' rent; if under £50, five years' rent; if under £100, four years' rent; and if over £100, three years' rent. The scale at present is, that if the rent is over £100, only one years' rent is to be given, and if under £10, seven years' rent. That is the condition in which we propose to leave such of the tenants of Ireland as do not desire to invoke the protection of the Court.

There are other provisions of the Bill to which I will now very briefly call the attention of the House.

I have said nothing as yet about the Ulster Custom; and on that subject a lively interest is felt by many hon. Members from Ireland. The general principle of our Bill as regards the Ulster Custom is this. The Ulster tenant may, if he pleases, remain under the custom as he is now; but if he remains in that position, as regards the sale of the tenant right and other particulars, he shall have the protection of the general provisions of the Bill for controlling augmentations of rent. We are convinced by the evidence that there is, whether extensively or occasionally, a very manifest conviction that the Ulster Custom, if it is to endure, must have some protection; and it is desirable that if the Ulster tenant wishes to go into the Court he should be allowed to do so. If he accepts the increased rent, he obtains the term of 15 years, during which he will hear nothing more of increased rent. So much if he remains under the custom; but if he chooses to pass from under the custom and fall back upon the general provisions of the Bill, and go into Court like anyone else, he is at liberty to do so. Speaking generally, we have thought it no part of our duty to interfere with current leases in Ireland. But as to leases in Ulster, we believe their case to be peculiar; and we provide that the Ulster tenant, now under lease, may claim compensation, as it has been provided under the clauses of the Land Act, with the modification now introduced when the lease expires. I think that is all I need say about the particular case of the Ulster tenant.

We have endeavoured to amend the law with regard to compensation for improvements. At present the law is defective, because it is dealt with under the phrase "improvements effected by the tenant or his predecessor in title;" and a technical difficulty, with regard to a breaking tenancy, has had the effect, in many judgments delivered in Ireland, of depriving tenants of the title of their predecessors as to compensation for improvements. We have therefore endeavoured to make an effectual amendment of the law on that point, so as to give the tenant compensation for the improvements effected by his predecessor in title, and for which he has had to pay.

Now comes the question of the leases in Ireland. We have provided in the Land Act of 1870 that a lease for 37 years should exempt the landlord from the provisions of the Act. But it has been stated that the feeble position of the tenant has been taken advantage of in some cases—though probably not in many—so far as almost to compel his acceptance of a lease, at a high rent, and on harsh terms, and with no remaining status at the end of the lease. Now what we propose is this: that any lease which is to exempt from the provisions of the Act must be a judicial lease, prepared or approved of by the Court; and we have made it the special business of the Court, in preparing and approving the provisions of a lease, to consider the interests of the tenant and the valuation of his tenancy. So that I hope we have made a sufficient provision as to the terms of the lease. With regard to the provision as to the expiry of the lease, the tenant will be in the position of a "future tenant"—that is to say, he will not have the power of going into the Court and of getting a judicial rent fixed; and the landlord may, if he please, raise his rent at the end of the lease. But in all other respects the tenant will be an annual tenant, and will have power to sell his tenant right.

There is a plan which it is said some of the landlords in Ireland are disposed to adopt and some of the tenants are disposed to favour, under which there is to be what is called a fixed tenancy—that is to say, a tenancy where the holding continues, subject either to a perpetual fee-farm rent, without any variation, or a perpetual fee-farm rent with a re-valuation by the Court at fixed periods, and where all power of resumption by the landlord from any cause, however great, and under whatever authority, is taken away. We think that to make a compulsory law of that nature would be to destroy the character of proprietor in the landlord in its essence and in its centre; and I do not require now to enter into the many grave arguments, perfectly distinct from the landlord's interest and right and including that interest and right, against such a proposition. Our proposal is that, in the case of these fixed tenancies, the Court should undertake the burden, wherever the landlord and tenant are agreed, of applying these provisions. We have provided, generally speaking, that there can be no power to contract out of the terms of the Act; and yet it does appear strange to impose a limitation of that kind upon what may fairly be called large holdings. We cannot here adopt the rule of rent, because the power to contract or not to contract out of the Act might vary with the variation of rent in a manner almost ridiculous. The valuation is more paramount; and we therefore propose that there should be a power to contract out of the Act in cases were the valuation amounts to £150 and upwards—that is to say, speaking generally, that this power of contracting out of the Act shall only apply in the case of holdings of a value of over £200 a-year. We have also a clause substituting arbitration for a decree of the Court; and I think that the only other point I need make clear to the House is the nature of the present tenancy. We are desirous to obviate any such supposition as that the present tenancy means anything but a tenancy in the hands of the present owner. We say that, if there is no breach in the conditions, it is capable of bearing a continuing interest—in fact, it is capable of passing on from generation to generation, unless the landlord exercises the power of resumption under the sanction and control of the public authorities.

After this long enumeration, I must still detain you for a very short time while I say a word or two with regard to the second and far less complex part of this Bill, in which at the present time the liveliest interest is felt; I mean the portion which I have described under the general phrase of the group of provisions requiring public advances. I would just take this opportunity, as making these public advances will constitute a very large part of the duties of the Court, of stating what we propose as to the constitution of the Court. That which will be, in one point of view, a Court, will be, in another point of view, a Land Commission. As a Court it will be charged with the final authority over the decisions of all land cases, and it will be the business of the Court so considered to lay down rules for the guidance of the Civil Bills Courts, which will really be the Courts of First Instance in all land cases. We did not think, upon the whole, that it would be wise to dispense altogether with the advantage to be derived from the great experience which the Judges of the Civil Bills Courts have acquired. It would have been very difficult to provide a new agency such as would absolutely justify us in removing the present powers altogether from the field. But we have endeavoured, in the first place, to make provision for calling in the aid of valuers where needed, and rendering that aid effective; and, in the second place, for their being subject to the rules of the Land Commission, so as to secure efficiency and uniformity in the administration of a very important law. The Land Commission will thus be the Court of Appeal, and will be the master, in what relates to land, of the tribunals below. It will consist of three persons, one of whom must always be a Judge or an ex-Judge of the Supreme Court. Its proper seat will be in Dublin. But, inasmuch as its operations may extend, especially in cases of public advances in connection with land, beyond the power of one set of Commissioners to deal with, we have invested it with the power not only of appointing Assistant Commissioners and other officers, but, if necessary, of appointing Sub-Commissioners to sit in the several Provinces of Ireland, and to conduct their functions under the control of the Central Commission.

So much for the constitution of the Court, which will be charged with this double group of functions, each of which I think exceedingly important.

Now I come to describe, and I need only describe briefly and rapidly, the important subjects which connect themselves with public advances. Do not let it be supposed that public advances are things unknown to Ireland. On tine contrary, we find that as regards agricultural improvements, so far as the definition of the purposes goes for which advances may be made, it is, I believe, absolutely beyond the wit of man to enlarge them; and the change which we propose to make in the law is not in regard to the purposes of agricultural improvements, but in regard to the agency through which they will be carried on. The first and most important point is that which relates to the acquisition of land by the tenant. I will not dis- cuss that interesting question at present I will only say that, economically, I quite admit it is open to a great diversity of view. It has m some cases been eminently successful. In Ireland you have many owners of land who have shown a faculty, which we cannot but admire, for it is nowhere excelled, of extracting the means of subsistence and the means of prosperity from very small holdings or spaces of ground. On the other hand, it must be admitted that, from whatever cause, small virtual proprietorships, under the name of perpetuity leases, have not been happily distinguished in the past history of Ireland. But I decline to enter into the economical part of the subject. What we desire, and what my right hon. Friend tine Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the original author of the suggestion, desires, is the political and social advantage of the people. We feel the great necessity there is of a serious effort on the part of Parliament to enlarge the circle of proprietors of land in Ireland, and to insist upon a more considerable portion of the community being in that body which possesses the traditions associated and connected with the ownership of land.

Now our provisions in regard to the acquisition of land by tenants are of two kinds. In the first place they are these: to assist tenants with money for the purchase of their holdings, without any further intervention by the Commission, where the tenant is able to buy and the landlord is willing to sell. I must say, on this point, that there are questions with regard to some public Bodies in Ireland—possibly some of the Companies in the North of Ireland—which may be opened up in the discussion on this Bill, but upon which I at present sedulously refrain from giving my opinion. I do not wish to complicate this discussion with that matter. But where a tenant can be assisted and fortified in the independent purchase of his holding, and where it would be fair to enable him to do it, we are disposed to give him every aid we can; and this, whether he purchases absolutely, or whether he purchases with the payment of a fine and the retention of the fee-farm rent on the land. But then what is more important is this—that the Commission is not only to assist the tenant in the purchase of his holding, but it is itself to become, on reasonable terms, the purchaser from willing landlords of their estates in order to re-sell those estates. Perhaps I ought, on this point, to say, without further delay, that a most important and difficult question here arises. We shall authorize the Commission, if the Bill be approved, to purchase where the proportion of the tenants, amounting to three-fourths in number and value, is ready to re-purchase, and to advance to these purchasing tenants three-fourths of the whole price. And here arises a very important question: are these tenants to be allowed to borrow the remaining fourth? Well, we came to the conclusion that, upon the whole, they ought to be allowed to do so; and one reason which I think is conclusive in favour of that liberal arrangement is this—that already under the Bill, apart from any purchase of the soil, they will have the tenant right. Having the tenant right, they will have something upon which they can borrow. When they purchase, the tenant right will merge in the fee; and it will be extremely hard upon them, when they have become not only possessed of the tenant right but are absolutely part owners of the soil, that when they have become the actual owners of a piece of land they should lose the power of borrowing which they possessed before. We propose that those purchases shall be entirely relieved from the difficulty as to the legal expenses of the purchase. We shall charge them a lump sum, and that lump sum will cover the law conveyance and every other charge. It will be so calculated as to do no more than fairly remunerate the State for the cost and labour involved in conducting the private business of individuals.

There is yet a further and not less important boon which we propose to confer. Of course we are obliged to provide that while the holding continues subject to a charge it should not be sub-let or subdivided. When it ceases to become subject to a charge the owner will become absolute master and landlord. But the boon to which I refer is this: we mean to guarantee the title of these purchasers. Now that is a provision of great importance; for, if you recollect, the Commissioners will not have a Parliamentary title themselves, but they will have a power of investigation, and they will be able, in the enormous majority of cases—almost in every case—to attain to a moral certainty. That which they will surrender, that which they will endanger, by giving this perfectness of title will be something very small; that which they will confer on the tenant purchaser will be something very great and essential.

This is a brief account, a rude outline, of what we propose with regard to provisions for the acquisition of land by tenants. So far as the rules of action are concerned, with regard to agricultural improvements, I have already stated that nothing can be more liberal or comprehensive than the definition of the purposes for which the State is authorized to advance, and desires to make advances both to owners and tenants—including leases—wherever they have an interest sufficient to constitute in any degree a basis of public security; and to show that I am not misleading the House in making this statement, I may observe that since the Famine the sum advanced in Ireland for the whole group of purposes of this kind appears to be not less than £17,500,000. The change we make is this: we propose to authorize the advances, not only to owners and to tenants, but likewise to solvent Companies. Companies may be formed for the purpose of the reclamation of land, for planting, or for other agricultural improvements; and the condition which we propose to require is this—that our advances shall not be greater than one-half the sums which the Companies themselves have procured and laid out, except in the case where they obtain the cover of a baronial guarantee; and then the sums we can advance, instead of being limited to one-half, may amount to as much as two-thirds.

There is another subject which cannot be omitted; but it is one of delicacy as well as of importance. I mean the subject of emigration. It is impossible for the Government to pass it by; but, at the same time, they are of opinion that it is a matter in which there must be great caution. There must be great caution in dealing with anything like what I may call sporadic emigration; but there may be well-regulated emigration—emigration of communities, carrying with them their local organization and traditions and domestic ties, which may possibly be carried on to the great advantage of all parties and to the individuals themselves. Keeping that in view, we include emigration amongst the purposes for which public advances may be made. This matter will not be, like advances for public works and so forth, under the control of the ordinary machinery of the Government; subject to the consent of the Treasury, it will be under the Land Commission, which may make advances for this purpose either, in the first place, to Colonial Governments—and in the case of Canada we include not only the Dominion but also the Provincial Legislatures—and, in the second place, to Companies.

So much for the purposes of the advances that we propose Parliament shall undertake in general terms to make it. It may perhaps be asked: what is the amount up to which these advances may be made? Well, Sir, we have much considered the matter, and we have thought it our duty not to place any other limit than prudential rule on the amount which Parliament may think it right from year to year to give. Let us take care not to charge the State with duties which it cannot perform. Let us take care that when we make advances they are covered by reasonable security. Let us take care that we do not tempt others into foolish measures. But, adopting all the rules of prudence, we should not like to say that either £5,000,000 or £10,000,000, or any other number of millions, was the absolute limit which could in no case be passed. And there is another reason for this course, which is complimentary to my right hon. Friend opposite, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it was in his time that full recognition was given to the principle that these advances of public money, though they are against assets, and are upon security, ought to be kept under the control of Parliament precisely like public expenditure. I think it was my right hon. Predecessor who first gave full effect to that principle, and established that good and excellent system under which the annual prospective wants of the State for all these purposes are now confided in the Treasury, and a Bill is brought down to Parliament asking it for whatever sum is shown to be necessary. I should have been sorry to infringe on any good law or measures which I found was due to the forethought and care of my Predecessor; and in this case I think the principles of Parliamentary control are in happy coincidence with our general purposes. I do not hesitate to say, on the part of the Government, that in our opinion the system of advances for the several purposes I have described ought to be tested by its working. We ought to be very slow indeed to fix a merely pecuniary limit so long as the bounds of prudence are respected, the essential conditions are fulfilled, and while we find the people of Ireland able and willing to avail themselves of the provisions of this Bill.

I think I have now gone through the most important provisions of this measure. I feel that I have led the House through a wilderness of detail, through. which I do not know whether I can supply them with a clue; but I will, in a very few words, try to sum up the effect of what I have said. I ought perhaps to have stated before, that as to the descriptions of tenancies in Ireland to which this Act applies, they are substantially the same as those contemplated by the Land Act of 1870. Therefore, when I speak of tenancies in Ireland, I mean such tenancies as come under the Act of 1870. We propose to set up, on the one hand, a system of limited and regulated freedom of contract between landlord and tenant. But in consideration of the circumstances of Ireland, we propose that the tenant shall, notwithstanding, be fortified by certain provisions of the law as to his right of sale and as to guarantees against arbitrary increase of rent. On the other hand, we offer free entrance into Court for the settlement of all questions which may arise between the parties, so that no matter relating either to tenure, or to assignment of land, or to rent, can escape the supervision of the public authority—the Court—if the present tenant desires it. The Court must act on general principles of justice; and if the improved general law keep a tenant out of Court, it will do so because he thinks it his interest to remain out of Court. I fully admit that in the case of any country in which the agricultural relations were established on a tolerably good and happy footing, it would be an extremely sorry offer to make, either to a landlord or a tenant, to tell him that he might have the privilege of going into a Court of Justice for the pur- pose of making his bargain. Still, in the peculiar state of affairs in Ireland, it is what we deliberately and advisedly propose to do. We have accordingly made the entrance into Court an essential part of the Bill; indeed, it is the very core and centre of the measure we now submit.

On the morning that this Bill passes every landlord and tenant will be subject to certain new provisions of the law of great importance. In the first place, an increase of rent will be restrained by certain rules. In the second place, the compensation for disturbance will be regulated according to different rates. And in the third place—more important probably than any—the right to sell the tenant's interest will be universally established. These are some of the means outside the Court which we propose; but there will also remain to the tenant the full power of going to the Court to fix a judicial rent, which may be followed by judicial tenant right. The judicial rent will entail a statutory term of 15 years, the renewal of it toties quoties to be provided so long as the present tenancy exists, and the present tenancy not to be determined by the mere change of tenants. Evictions will hereafter, we trust, be only for default; and resumption by the landlord, apart from the default of the tenant, will disappear from Ireland, except it be from causes both reasonable and grave, and such as may be brought into question before the Court.

We are sometimes told that it is a hopeless business to legislate for Ireland. I am not of that opinion. Let us consider what has happened in Parliament in our time. For half a century, and half a century alone, Parliament has been intermittently—but still, on the whole, not without resolution, and not without good intention—engaged in the attempt of applying to Ireland better, larger, and more liberal systems of policy and legislation. And what has happened in Ireland in that time? No country has reaped larger benefits from the great transition between Protection and Free Trade—benefits absolutely unmixed, for the price of everything that Ireland produced was raised. In England the tenant farmer had to face a decrease in the price of his principal commodity, on which he had always mainly and unduly relied for the payment of his rent—namely, his wheat. But Ireland is a country which imported more wheat than was grown. The benefit to her accordingly, in that respect, has been unmixed, and from other causes it has been abundant. Look at the improved condition of the people. What old man is there in Ireland now who can compare unfavourably the condition of the people at present in every part of Ireland with what it was half a century ago? or who can overlook the great transformation that has taken place in the country without thanking God for what has occurred? Look at the increase in wages; to say that they have doubled in many cases would be saying what is very far within the mark. Look at the diminution of crime. The homicides of Ireland have shrunk to a mere fraction of what, within my recollection, they habitually were. The small holdings—the very knot of the difficulty, not yet overcome—have, after all, kept on a steady progress of diminution. In 1851 they were 280,000; in 1861 they were 269,000. [Ironical cheers.] I am now speaking of holdings under 15 acres, and I believe they are a source of great difficulty in Ireland. I have no aversion to small holdings. In England I delight to see them. I may say I abhor the system which has prevailed in Ireland—the system of what is called the wholesale consolidation of farms. Still I have no doubt that the diminution of small holdings in Ireland is a sign of the progress of the country. In 1851, as I have said, there were 280,000; in 1861 they were 269,000; in 1871 they were 246,000; and in 1879 they were 227,000. That cannot be said to be a violent diminution; nor can I wish to see a diminution in any respect resembling that which succeeded the Famine. That which has taken place seems to me to be a diminution under the influence of gentler and more natural causes; and if by those causes the diminution can be carried further, especially in a few districts of the country, I have no doubt—in fact, it is proved in evidence—that it will be greatly for the advantage of the people of Ireland. On the other hand, holdings above 15 acres have increased considerably in number. In 1851 they were 149,000; in 1879 they were 171,000.

And here, Sir, there is another statement which I wish to notice, although it comes from a source not particularly sympathetic or gentle towards me. Indeed the pamphlet from which I quote rather violently denounces the Land Act of 1870, for which I am greatly responsible. It is a pamphlet which is called Facts and Figures, published by the Land Committee of Ireland, and I assume nothing on its behalf except its good faith and the competency of the people who wrote it.

Now here are some very interesting facts on which I cannot but think reliance may be placed; and if they be facts, they will tend to correct a mischievous misapprehension that has gone abroad, to the effect that changes and raisings of rent have become more frequent during late years in Ireland, at least, as far as the larger estates are concerned. For these facts and figures, and the operations of the Land Committee, do not profess to have a great deal to do with, or to speak for, the smaller estates. What they state is this. They give an account of 4,703,000 acres of land in Ireland, which makes an area so large that we cannot suppose it not to be representative of a large proportion of the entire country. From page 19 of the pamphlet from which I quote you will find the following figures:—In the 10 years between 1850 and 1860 the rents were changed, that is to say raised, for that is evidently the meaning of it, on 1,515,000 acres. In the 10 years between 1860 and 1870 the rents were raised on 868,000. And in the 10 years between 1870 and 1880, that is, during the period since the Land Act was passed, the rents were only raised on 326,000 acres, or less than one-fourth of the acreage on which the rents had been raised in the decade of 20 years before.

Take next the case of evictions, which is the last test I will apply, to show that we have some reason to think that the labour of Parliament has not been altogether wasted in Ireland. I take the 15 years from 1854 to 1868, and I compare them with the eight years since the Land Act of 1870, and before the unhappy seasons of 1878 and 1879. In these 15 years, ending in 1868, the maximum number of evictions was 1,825; the minimum was 459, and the average 932. In the eight years between the Land Act and 1878 the maximum number of evictions had fallen from 1,825 to 592, the minimum number from 459 to 368, and the average number from 932 to 467, or exactly one-half.

Those figures are a great encouragement to us. There may be other facts, Sir, which are disheartening enough; but those which I have quoted are such as ought to teach us neither to despair nor even to despond. And there is a higher and a nobler encouragement still than this, and one to be enjoyed by all men who have faith in certain principles of action. It is said that our legislation has failed in Ireland. I do not admit failure. I admit the success to be incomplete. I am now asked how it is to be made complete. I say by patient perseverance in well-doing; by steady adherence to the work of justice. We shall then not depend upon the results of the moment. It will not be what to-day may say, or what to-morrow may say. It will be rather what fruits we shall reap in the long future of a nation's existence. In dealing with that we proceed upon a reckoning which cannot fail. Justice, Sir, is to be our guide. And, as it has been said that love is stronger than death, even so justice is stronger than popular excitement, stronger than the passions of the moment, stronger even than the grudges, the resentments, and the sad traditions of the past. Walking in that path we cannot err. Guided by that light—that Divine light—we are safe. Every step that we take upon our road is a step that brings us nearer to the goal, and every obstacle, even although for the moment it may seem insurmountable, can only for a little while retard, and never can defeat, the final triumph.

The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I only rise, Sir, for the purpose of expressing my own strong sense, and I hope it will be the opinion also of the House, that it is due both to the importance of the subject and also to the great importance of the speech to which we have listened with so much attention, and I may say with so much admiration, that we should for the present postpone any discussion of the principles which are involved in this proposal of the Government. The matter is one of the very highest national importance; the considerations involved are of the most delicate character; and we may easily— even after so full a description as has been given us—misunderstand in the first moment the application and bearing of some of the proposals which have been made. I hope, therefore, it may be the feeling of the House to abstain now from anything in the nature of discussion; although, of course, it may be right that questions should be put on any point that seems to require elucidation. For my own part, I limit myself to expressing the hope that we may very soon be favoured with the Bill itself, in order that we may have full time to consider it. I understand that the Government propose to commence the discussion on the second reading, which can hardly be short, on the first Monday after the Easter Recess. I give no opinion upon that; but we shall certainly require a good deal of time fully to master all the details of the measure. I am sure that the House will address itself to this great question in a spirit of calm deliberation, with a desire to do justice to its merits, and also to the economic and the social considerations to which our attention has been directed, bearing in mind that what is not economically true may be plausible but not really satisfactory. But I trust the House will consider that these are matters that are carefully to be weighed and discussed without passion or prejudice, and, at the same time, without any premature readiness to yield too quickly to anything in the nature of mere emotion and sentiment. I must personally thank my right hon. Friend for observations which he made in the course of his speech. I am sure that in the matter to which he referred there can be but one desire on the part of all who are interested in the discussion of financial questions, that we should do the best we can to insure regularity of proceeding and responsibility in Parliament. Certainly the application of the principles which he has indicated, if accepted by the House, will amply test the powers of financial administration. I abstain, however, myself, and I hope it will be the disposition of the House to abstain, from anything like lengthened discussion on this occasion.

MR. SHAW

said, it was not his intention to attempt anything like a discussion of the provisions of the Bill. He concurred entirely with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in deprecating a hasty decision on the questions involved in a measure of that great importance. At the same time, speaking generally, the second part of the Bill had been explained so simply and fully that he must say he believed it would be looked upon by the people of Ireland as being of a satisfactory nature. He thought it might go a little further; but, looking at the whole case, and considering the difficulties which the Government had to contend with, it was a generous measure. The first part of the Bill was of such intricacy, and dealt with interests of so varied a character, that he would like to see the Bill before committing himself to an opinion upon it. He had always a certain suspicion of the sub-clauses in a Bill, having found that they often did away with the generosity of its general principle. He did not understand exactly whore the right hon. Gentleman had got the term of 15 years as a term for the re-adjustment of relations between landlords and tenants. He was sure that such a term had not been brought before either of the Commissions. He might appeal to Irish Members sitting in all parts of the House. That question was a question of business, and he thought that the landlords of Ireland would see the inexpediency of having too frequent repetitions of those adjustments, and would give a long term, which would be better for the interests of all parties concerned. The general weight of opinion was in favour of a longer term for adjusting rents than that proposed in the Bill. He hoped that the Prime Minister would consider that point before they came to the second reading. Again, he believed that the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to deal with existing leases. Now, he thought that some of the leases made within the last 10 years were leases which ought to be interfered with in the interest of justice, and that there would be no real objection on the part of the community generally in Ireland to that. Cases had come before the Commission where such leases had been forced upon the tenants, who had no option; and he did not see why the Commission should not be empowered to deal with cases where manifest injustice had been done. No one who knew the western parts of Connaught could read the accounts of the ejectments against the poor people without deep sorrow. He knew that country well, and believed that many of the people were not able to pay any rent at all; they were in a state of dire poverty. He therefore trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would insert in the Bill some date prior to its introduction, say the 1st of January, or even an earlier day, so as to bring those ejectments within the operation of the measure. The Courts of Quarter Sessions were capable of deciding legal points; but they were not fit to deal with questions of valuation even with the assistance of any valuators who might be brought in. Surely there would be no difficulty in handing over to the Commission or the Land Court questions of the appointment of valuers and the supervision of valuation and of rents. In conclusion, he most sincerely hoped that that effort, which he recognized to be an honest and a great effort, by a great Minister, to settle one of the greatest questions, not political only, but social, which ever came before a Government, would be judged calmly and fairly on both sides of the House, and that it would prove effectual in bringing about a permanent settlement of the land tenure of Ireland.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he rose that it might not be supposed that he admitted the accuracy of the construction put by the right hon. Gentleman on a paragraph of the Report of the Royal Agricultural Commission. It was quite true that the Commissioners did say that it was the desire of the tenants throughout Ireland that there should be interference on the part of a Court with the arbitrary raising of rents; but that meant the arbitrary raising of rents on the tenant's own improvements. That was a very different thing from approval of the establishment of a Court to regulate rents on all occasions, upon which at present he expressed no opinion. The second part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, where he endeavoured to deal with and mitigate what was, no doubt, the chief evil of Ireland, he had heard with undisguised satisfaction. But he wished the right hon. Gentleman would point out in what manner the landlord was to receive compensation. He remembered that when the Act of 1870 was before the House, the right hon. Gentleman stated over and over again that any measure of the kind could not be carried out with justice unless compensation was made to the landlord.

MR. LITTON

said, that the people of the North of Ireland, when the Bill was placed in their hands, would approach its consideration with no unfriendly feelings. There was one point upon which he would reserve his opinion—namely, as to the 15 years' statutory term and the revising of rent. He would wish to see a longer period of rest before revision. He thought the principle which allowed the interference of the Court to be invoked at the instance of the tenant, and the provision as to free sale, worthy of the highest commendation. But he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to meet the legitimate aspirations of the people of Ireland as to something more decided and clear in the nature of fixity of tenure. The desire of all the tenants he had ever met was to be free from the insecurity which crushed every effort at improvement. No one ever proposed. fixity of tenure without admitting that it should be subject to the payment of a fair rent and to prohibition against subdivision. He would only add that ho and his hon. Friends would reserve to themselves the right, in a loyal spirit, to endeavour to improve the Bill in several important particulars in the interest, not only of the tenant farmers of Ulster, but of all Ireland.

LORD ELCHO

said, he had no intention to say a word on the Bill; but he wished to ask two Questions. 1st, Whether his right hon. Friend would state what were the demands made by hon. Gentlemen behind him, which he characterized. as "public plunder?" 2nd, Whether any calculation had been made, or, if not, whether he would cause it to be made before the second reading of the Bill, as to the money value of the tenant right which was about to be conferred upon Irish tenants by the Land Bill, and for which they had paid nothing?

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that he believed the measure just announced was a very good one. It seemed practically to be the "three F's." The great question was, as regards the principles, to guide the Land Court in determining what was fair rent. The right hon. Gentleman had passed somewhat lightly over that subject. A fair rent might be the commercial rent, less the tenant's improvements; and another view would be that the rents should have some relation to what was paid before, and that the in- crease of that rent should take place only in proportion to the increase of value, and equitable reasons for increasing or diminishing that rent. He did not quite apprehend from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in what degree the position of the small tenant would be made one of complete fixity. As far as he understood, the eviction of the small tenant was to be obstructed and prevented; that would be fixity of tenure not directly, but indirectly conferred. He gathered from the general drift of the right hon. Gentleman's speech that the large tenant would gain most by the Bill, because, owing to the smallness of his compensation for disturbance and liability to be contracted out of the Act of 1870, the large tenant was practically almost excluded from that Act; whereas by the present Bill he would be put on almost exactly the same footing as the small tenant. It appeared to him (Sir George Campbell) that there were two kinds of tenure—one a status tenure, and the other a purely contract tenure. As to contract tenure, it would, in his opinion, be a mistake to interfere with it, except to give the right to get the value of the capital which the tenant put into the soil. As to the latter parts of the Bill, though the right hon. Gentleman said much about the mode in which money was to be advanced, he said nothing about the mode in which it was to be got back. He did not understand how the advances from the British Treasury were to be recovered, especially from Colonial Governments; and whatever was done in this direction should be done with great circumspection, and with a clear prospect of getting the money back again. The House would remember that the importance of saving, or, at any rate, of not losing, money had been sufficiently pointed out in the Budget Speech.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

asked whether it was intended that the provisions of the Bill as between landlord and tenant should come into effect during the existence of present agreements? In other words, would a tenant be able to apply to a Court for a reduction of the rent he had agreed to pay during the currency of the term for which he had agreed to pay it?

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have no difficulty in answering that question. If the provisions of the Bill applied only where there was no existing agreement, the operation of the measure would be very limited indeed. In his opinion, any man would incur a grievous responsibility who would say anything, either in the House or out of it, which would have a tendency to prejudge the Bill, or which would tend to prevent the public of Ireland, whom it so greatly concerned, from giving just and impartial consideration to the merits of the provisions which the Prime Minister had explained. Without, therefore, attempting to discuss the Bill, he would only say that he thought it an honest and manly effort to deal with a complicated and difficult question. He, however, should like to know whether, when a tenant came to the end of an existing lease, he would have a right to go to the Land Court and ask for a re-adjustment of his rent?

MR. GLADSTONE

replied, that he would not, in that case.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

thought such a tenant as worthy an object of the protection of the Bill as a tenant from year to year. He looked to the second part of the Bill with great hope as a means for working out the redemption of the Irish people. At the same time, he should have been very glad if it had been proposed to make the Bill to some extent retrospective, and believed it would not be either unjust or inconvenient to antedate its operation to the day on which the Compensation for Disturbance Bill of last year was intended to have come into force. By that means it would be made to cover the cases in which, under the pressure of the exceptional distress of the last three years, the tenants had been deprived of their holdings.

MR. LEWIS

praised the very clear manner in which the Prime Minister had stated his proposals. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman had disposed of more than one fallacy which had hitherto prevented fair dealing with this great question, and it was now to be hoped that neither the iniquity of the Irish Land Law nor the harsh and oppressive character of the Irish landowners would be taken for granted as undoubted facts. As regarded the second part of the Bill, he was inclined to think that the Government might have been more liberal in their advances. The difference between three-fourths and four-fifths was not very considerable; but it represented a sum that was more important to the Irish tenant than to the country at large. He, however, asked the House to look with suspicion on any proposition to lend money to public companies to carry out emigration. He quite recognized the distinction between the attempt to create a peasant proprietary and the desire to encourage the real and bonâ fide farmers to become the owners of their holdings. The latter class of men alone were useful; but to settle a number of miserable and poverty-stricken people on small plots of land was an unmixed evil. On the other hand, nothing could be better than to enable the actual cultivators of the soil, substantial men, with an adequate quantity of land, to become the possessors of their farms.

MR. GIVAN

assured the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell) that the advances from State funds to Irish tenants, judging from the past, would certainly be repaid. He, however, regretted that greater pecuniary advantages should not have been offered to the tenants, who, in a great many cases, would not have sufficient capital in their hands to make the necessary improvements in their land. If the Government intended this measure to be successful, they ought to empower the whole of the purchase- money to be advanced by the State; and they might with advantage also authorize advances by the Board of Works for drainage and other improvements. Then, the term of 15 years appointed for fixity of rent appeared to him too low; he hoped the Government would see their way to extend it to 30 years. He also thought that a more satisfactory tribunal for the settlement of land questions might have been created. On the whole, however, he believed the Bill, subject to Amendments which might be made in Committee, would confer incalculable benefits upon the people of Ireland.

MR. PARNELL

quite agreed that it would not be fair either to the Government or the Bill to express any opinion on it until they saw the measure in print. He wished, however, to ask a question in reference to a point of practical experience in view of the present state of the West of Ireland. The view he entertained as to the retrospective action of the measure, or rather, as to the effect the measure would have on tenants ejected already, or who might be ejected before the Bill passed into law, was that such tenants, provided. the Bill passed before the six months terms allowed for redemption, would have a right to come into the Court, ask to have their rent fixed, and sell their tenant right at the fixed rent; and he desired to know whether he was correct in holding that view? Without venturing to discuss the main provisions of the Bill, he regretted the Government had adopted the principle of emigration instead of migration. If they had given power to the Commission they proposed to form to purchase land in Ireland, the Commission would be able to find plenty of improvable land in every county where a congestion of the population existed for this purpose of planting or migrating the tenants from other districts. In Mayo, for instance, where the people existed in the most miserable condition on small mountains with bog farms, there was plenty of land which such a Commission could purchase, and stock with tenants after they had sold their interest in their own wretched holdings, under the provisions of the proposed Bill. That, at any rate, might have been given as an alternative to the emigration scheme. His own opinion was that every man in Ireland at present was required there for the purpose of developing the industrial resources of the country; and while he was unwilling to say that emigration should not take place from Ireland, he considered it ought to be a natural movement of the people, such as prevailed in Continental countries. There was another matter cognate to this subject to which he wished to allude—namely, the Irish labourers. Their condition was admitted to be most wretched, and they had no future before them. He should have thought the Government would have given the Commission power to buy land to settle labourers upon it in certain districts where they might find employment, and so render them less dependent on employers. He hoped the Government would give their earnest attention to these two matters before the Committee stage. With regard to the main features of the Bill, he would not at that moment give any opinion as to whether the proposed arrangements for the Courts were workable or not. His opinion in times past was that it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the respective interests of landlord and tenant in the soil, and that any friction, however slight, would destroy the practical utility of such a scheme as that proposed. This was the opinion of the Land League, which believed the true solution of the Land Question was to enable the occupiers to become owners. Whether the right hon. Gentleman had solved the difficulties of this great question was a matter on which he did not wish to express an opinion.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that, after the very clear statement of the objects of the Bill made by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, it was unnecessary that he should trouble the House with many remarks with respect to it. He was glad to know in the discussion that had taken place that there was an evident determination on the part of the House to secure a fair hearing and consideration for the proposals of the Government. He wished to answer one or two questions which had been put, as well as to remove one or two misconceptions which seemed to exist as to the provisions of the measure. He could assure the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that he was in error in supposing that the Government intended to promote emigration in opposition to migration. The hon. Gentleman said he would not object to emigration if the people left the country of their own accord, and the Government would certainly be greatly opposed to any plan of emigration which meant the contrary. The sole object of the Bill was to place before the people the plans by which Government thought their position might be improved. They hoped to greatly improve the tenure of the Irish tenant. In the next place, they hoped to facilitate the purchase of the freehold land by the Irish tenant; but that was not to be done suddenly; but they hoped to put a very large scheme into operation. There was one feature of the Bill to which the Prime Minister had forgotten to allude, and that was that the Government would be prepared to make an advance to the Irish tenant to buy a perpetual quit rent. Then they hoped to be able to encourage reasonable and well-matured plans for the reclamation of waste land, and they hoped, although it was a very difficult matter, to put before the tenants in the more crowded districts the advantages of emigration, so that they should be able to choose between the plan of the improvement of their tenure, if they stopped, and the settlement upon waste land, and also a system of well-considered emigration. As to the question which the hon. Gentleman put with regard to a tenant against whom proceedings might be taken, he would say that if proceedings were being taken at the time of the passing of the Act the tenant would have the power to apply to the Court to fix a judicial rent, and if, as very often might be the case, that was a lower rent than he now paid, he would get the advantage of tenant right which might accrue from that lower rent, while, as to the six months for redemption, the Bill might turn out to be quite as retrospective as his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) had suggested. The Bill did not propose to interfere with existing leases. That was a matter which must be fairly debated; but, of course, the Bill would be a mockery if a mere agreement was to exclude the tenant from its operations. His hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) made a mistake when he stated that in his opinion the small tenants would get very little advantage from the Bill. The fact was that they would get all the advantages from it which the larger tenants would. He would have fixity of tenure for the first 15 years, and fixity of tenure for the next 15 years, supposing he thought fit to apply to the Court. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), with his usual clearness, had referred to the benefit which would accrue from the fact that application to the Court was made optional rather than compulsory. He hoped, however, that that statement would not be understood to mean that the option was with the landlord, for that was not the case, for it would be optional with the tenant to apply, while it would not be in the power of the landlord to prevent his doing so. His belief was, he might add, that when the tenant knew his rent might be raised, he would not very often use the option of going into Court, though, if he wished, he might do so at any time. With re- gard to the labourers, that was a question that had received the very anxious consideration of the Government; but they had not seen how they could introduce provision with regard to labour, in the alteration of land tenure, excepting so far as labourers could be put into a better position by well-considered plans for emigration or otherwise. As the principles of the Bill had not been attacked, he would not detain the House with any further remarks. His right hon. Friend had said that it was one of the most important measures with which he had ever had to deal. It had been considered as carefully as any scheme had ever been considered by a Government, and the details would be discussed with every desire on their part to make it acceptable to the House and to the country.

MR. BIDDELL

asked, whether the loans which were to be made to Irish tenant farmers would be in the nature of mortgages or not, and what rate of interest would have to be paid? His impression was that if the terms were at all liberal, many English tenant farmers would be glad to avail themselves of the opportunity of becoming proprietors of their holdings in a similar way.

MR. CALLAN

thought it would be unwise for any Irish Member to express a strong opinion upon the Bill about to be introduced, especially after the experience which had been gained from the University Bill of 1873, which had at first been received with acclaim by the Irish Members. But he could not help expressing his regret, which he believed would be concurred in by the Irish people, that the subject of the fixity of tenure—the real want of the Irish agriculturist—was conspicuously absent from the Bill. But oven though fixity of tenure was absent, he would not have expressed an opinion were it not for the unfortunate statement made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with which, so far as the present Bill was concerned, he extinguished all hope of the question of the Irish labourers being dealt with. In 1870 the Government absolutely pledged themselves to legislate for that class of the community, and they wore bound, as soon as they could, to fulfil that pledge. He should, therefore, like the Government to say that, if not this year, a measure would be taken to give facili- ties for the erection of agricultural labourers' cottages, and the allocation of sites for gardens.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. MELDON

thought that, as far as he could understand the Bill, it contained many points which must commend themselves to universal approval. He particularly approved that part of the measure which proposed to leave landlords and tenants free to contract, this in his view being the chief point that should be considered in all legislation regarding the land. The Bill gave substantially to the tenants of Ireland that which they had long been agitating for, and he thought the measure, as shadowed forth in the speech of the Prime Minister, deserved their warmest support. Every person who wished to see the relations of tenant and landlord placed on a satisfactory basis would acknowledge that the matter had been admirably dealt with. He thought, however, that the proportion of the purchase money to be asked on behalf of the tenant was rather too small, when they considered that the Select Committee recommended a much larger proportion should be advanced. This, however, was a point of detail which could be dealt with in Committee; but he hoped a further concession on this point would be made by the Government.

MR. VILLIERS-STUART

alluded in terms of praise to the able speech of the Prime Minister; and, while he considered it was too premature to express an opinion on the Bill, regretted that the Prime Minister had made no reference to the condition of the agricultural labouring class in Ireland. The condition of the Irish farm labourer, he said, was a disgrace to any civilized community. He hoped, therefore, that notwithstanding the difficulty of the subject, the Government would see its way before the second reading of the Bill to accept some clauses in Committee dealing with the question of the farm labourers. He had already handed in a Notice of a Resolution in their favour, which he proposed to move on the second reading of the Bill.

MR. ERRINGTON

could not help expressing the great pleasure the speech of the Prime Minister had afforded him. The Bill, so far as he had been able to examine it, appeared to be very good. When it was thoroughly understood in Ireland, he felt sure it would create general satisfaction.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

repeated the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk (Mr. Biddell).

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

thanked the Government for the introduction of the Bill, and said, that though it did not go to the extent that some had demanded in regard to fixity of tenure, it went a great way, and would give satisfaction in Ireland. The proposals relating to fair rents and free sale were complete, and carried out to the full in this Bill. He thought that those Members who had advocated this principle of land legislation, instead of resorting to revolutionary measures, could now address their constituents, as he would do his, and justify the position they had taken up by showing that its success was in the Bill brought in by the Prime Minister that evening. He was personally indebted to the Prime Minister for this measure, and he was sure the feeling of the country would endorse its proposals.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, he would not attempt to do more than reply to the Questions that had been asked. He hoped, however, that the opposition that had been threatened in Committee, because the Bill did not do all that was desired in reference to labourers' dwellings, would not be persisted in. The Government had very much at heart the sufferings of this large portion of the population, borne with unexampled patience for many years; but it would be inexpedient to overload this measure with a matter which could be dealt with separately, and he was sure the Government would apply their energies to the redress of those sufferings. With reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington), a leading provision of the Bill was that a tenant should not pauperize himself, and that a holding should remain in the hands of one person; and in the event of intestacy, if the next of kin were more than one, or if there were a charge for the benefit of widow or children, a sale would bring the property into the hands of one person, so that sub-division would be avoided. The reply to the hon. Member for Suffolk (Mr. Biddell) was that the rate of interest would be about 3½per cent; paying off principal and interest in 35 years, by an annuity of 5 per cent of the sum advanced.

Motion agreed to.

Bill to further amend the Law relating to the occupation and ownership of Land in Ireland; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.

Billpresented, and read the first time. [Bill 135.]