§ Progress resumed.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)proposed a new clause, providing for additional payments to clerks of the peace and other officials, in respect of any duties imposed upon them by the Bill.
§ Clause agreed to, and ordered to be added to the Bill.
THE CHAIRMANThe clause of the hon. Member for Waterford County (Mr. Villiers Stuart), dealing with the state and condition of labourers' dwellings, is rather for a Public Health Act than for a Bill dealing with the Land Laws, and is, therefore, outside the scope of the Bill.
§ MR. VILLIERS STUARTregretted exceedingly that it should be so; but, of course, if it were ruled out of Order, there was nothing for it but to submit. Sanitary inspection was most important, and one of the leading features of any Bill for the improvement of Ireland; and a want of sanitary conditions caused a great waste of the health and strength of the people. He would only add that the clauses already passed were, of course, very valuable, but they did not 1675 cover the whole of the ground by any means.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANasked if that part of the new clause which had reference to the erection of labourers' dwellings was out of Order?
THE CHAIRMANI understand that all these clauses of the hon. Member hang one to the other and run in sequence. They are, therefore, out of Order.
§ (Security to labourers of equitable rent and permanence of tenure.)
§ "Every letting to a labourer under the two sections lastly hereinbefore contained shall be for the statutory term created by the Court at the time at which the Court sanctions or requires such letting, or in existence at such time, and shall cease and determine if and when the labourer to whom it is made shall refuse or omit without reasonable cause to work for the tenant of such statutory term.
§ "In fixing the rent to be paid by the labourer in respect of such letting, the Court shall have regard to the acreable rent paid by the tenant of the holding, and to the expenditure (if any) made or to be made by him for the purposes of fitting the premises sanctioned or required to be let for the residence or accommodation of the labourers to whom they are let.
§ "The procedure for the recovery of cottier tenancies under the statute of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth years of the reign of Her Present Majesty, chapter one hundred and fifty-four, sections eighty-four, eighty-five, eighty-six, and eighty-seven, shall be applicable to Proceedings for the recovery of lettings to labourers made under the two Clauses lastly hereinbefore contained: Provided always, That either party to any such proceedings shall have a right of appeal to the Court; but such right of appeal, if exercised by the labourer, shall not give him the right to keep possession of the premises let to him pending such appeal."
§ The hon. Gentleman said it was not for him to address the Committee at any length at this stage of the Bill, more especially as he did not anticipate that he would carry his clause. At the same time, he thought that it contained a very useful provision. There were very nearly 700,000 occupiers of land, and if they were reckoned five to a family, it would give a population of over 3,000,000. Taking the labourers at about 200,000, and allowing five to the family, they would have a population of about 1,000,000. He did not think this would be considered to be a very low estimate, when they remembered that it only left 1,100,000 of all the other various classes of which the Irish community was com- 1676 posed. Of this 1,000,000 of the labouring population he did not suppose that there would be more than 300,000 who could be fairly classed as able-bodied, and therefore fit to be employed as agricultural labourers. He might assume that no one would think of compelling farmers to take labourers if he did not want them; and he thought it would be admitted that the farmers themselves must be the best judges of whether they wanted the labourers or not. He did not think that there would be anything feasible in the proposal to enable good landlords to take half-acres or acres from the farmers, nor to have the labourers down upon them. This being his view, he certainly could not have voted for the Amendment which had been placed on the Paper by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell). If he himself were a farmer, and the landlord took an acre or a half-acre of his holding and put a labourer upon it, he most certainly would not employ that labourer, and he would assert his right to choose his labourers for himself. He approved of the proposal by the Government that the initiative of providing for the labourers should rest with the farmers; and he thought that the ultimate decision as to whether the holding should be in the labourer at all should be left to the Court. He had no doubt that the Court would do what was necessary to comply with the wishes of the farmers when they wanted to take labourers. The interposition of the Court would be useful to save the farmer from putting undue pressure upon the labourer, and it would save the public from the establishment of mere squatters. It would also guarantee, as far as legislation could do it, that the labourers would only settle down where employment could be provided for them, and where, therefore, they could be made comfortable. At all the meetings held during the land agitation, the farmers themselves said they would, as far as possible, considering the difference in the position of the farmer and labourer, obtain for the labourer the advantages they got for themselves. The clause which had been carried in the Bill certainly secured equitable rent for the labourer, but nothing with regard to tenure; and it was to remedy this defect in the proposal of the Government that he was anxious this clause should be 1677 added to the Bill. If a farmer made up his mind to take a labourer, he went before the Court and obtained the sanction of the Court to have that labourer; and he (The O'Donoghue) proposed by this clause that the labourer should have the same tenure as the farmer. If the farmer lost his holding owing to any of the causes of forfeiture under the Bill, he proposed that the labourer should lose his holding also, because the same measure gave him a right to his allotment and his cottage. Of course, they did not know whether the next occupant of the farm would want labourers at all, and if he did he supposed it would be admitted that he should have the right to choose for himself. He proposed that the labourer should only forfeit his tenure of the cottage and the allotment in the ease of his refusal to work for the farmer; and his clause empowered the farmer to go before a magistrate at Petty Sessions to obtain recovery of his cottage and his holding, if he could show that the labourer unreasonably refused to work. Of course, he took it for granted that the magistrates and the Land Commission would take into account whether the farmer acted reasonably or unreasonably. He could imagine the magistrate or the Court deciding, in a case where the farmer offered wages below the ordinary wages, that that was unreasonable conduct on the part of the farmer, and the labourer should not forfeit his cottage and allotment for refusing to work for wages below the ordinary rate. The clause gave both parties a right to appeal to the Land Court; but, pending the appeal, it did not enable the labourer to retain possession of his cottage. He was aware it would be said that it would be unreasonable for the farmer to keep a labourer whom he did not like; but he could not admit that argument when the landlords objected to the tenants having a permanent tenure. They said—"Why should they keep tenants they did not like?" But that argument was rejected; and, therefore, he did not think it could be used in the interest of the farmers, nor did he admit that the agricultural labourers could be treated as domestic servants any more than they could treat artizans in a factory or miners in a mine as domestic servants. Farmers could not expect to have everything their own way any more than the landlords—they must be prepared to make sacrifices for the 1678 benefit of the labouring population. All the agricultural classes under this Bill were going to have a fresh start under most favourable conditions, and the farmers must do what they had engaged to do in carrying out the wishes of the labourers; while the labourers on their part, he was certain, would recognize the fact that it was their interest and their duty to make themselves useful to the farmer. He certainly should press this clause to a division, if it were only to obtain an expression of opinion as to the right of the labourer to have a permanence of tenure.
§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he was afraid that the object the hon. Member had in view was foreign to the purpose of the Bill. The provisions after which the hon. Member proposed to insert his clause did not contemplate the erection of cottages for agricultural labourers for any fixed or specific period, but enabled the farmer to provide proper and suitable tenements for such labourers as he employed. The Amendment of the hon. Member proposed to locate the labourers, and turn them from the condition of labourers into tenants; and, if it were followed out to its consequences, the result would be this, that when the farmer got a statutory term of 15 years, the labourer who happened to be employed at the time for the farmer would also get a statutory term for his dwelling, and, instead of being one of a migratory class, would be continued for 15 years, and possibly even for successive periods of 15 years. It seemed to him that it was quite impossible to accept the Amendment, and therefore he trusted that the hon. Member would not press it.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that, in order to secure something for the labourers, decided action should be taken on this clause, because it was melancholy that the unfortunate labourers should have to go from three to four miles to their work, and he thought that the Government should require something to be done for them in this respect. There was no desire to place them where they were not required; but it was important they should live on the farms where they were at work.
§ MAJOR NOLANsaid, he was not going to discuss the details of this clause; but he certainly hoped that the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue) would press it to a division. The hon. Member's way of improving the condition of the labourer might not be his own; but, unless the Committee determined to do something, the labourer would certainly be left out in the cold. They must remember that the labourer in Ireland was in this position—he was created by the landlords, and from the laws of entail and from the impossibility of selling small plots of land, there was no inducement offered to the labourer to save his money for the purpose of purchasing a small plot of land or a house. It was an axiom that the Irish labourer would only save to purchase a house or a plot of ground—something that he could see. A labourer was willing to pay for the house or plot of land, and if he had been able to do that during the last 50 or 100 years there would have been a considerable number of them with plots and houses. They were under a debt to these strong men, and they ought to try and do something for them. Very little had been done hitherto. Several propositions were on the Paper, and he hoped the Government would accept some of them. The clause of the hon. Member for Tralee, although he did not assent to all its details, contained in it something which would do the labourer good.
MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he did not yield to the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down, or the Mover of the clause, in his desire to benefit the labourer. But this was an Amendment which he could not vote for. It was a mistake for the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) to suppose that the effect of the Amendment was to provide cottages or facilities for the building of new ones. [Mr. O'SULLIVAN: It provides labourers with cottages.] That was not so. He could quite understand that it might be quite necessary to have some protection for the labourers as against small farmers; but he wanted to point out that the effect of this clause was not to provide them with cottages, but to fix the working population in definite places, although the claims of the labour market might call them somewhere else. This Amendment would be most disadvantageous to the working classes. It would be objectionable to 1680 those having a small quantity of land, instead of taking their labour to market, to be fixed on a small holding. He quite agreed in the desirability of providing increased facilities for the acquirement of proper houses on the small holdings, and he also agreed in the necessity of controlling the terms on which the farmer let the land to the labourer; but this clause would neither effect the one nor the other, for it would fix and limit the supply of labour.
§ MR. DAWSONsaid, he thought the object of the Government clause was that where the farmer brought labour to the farm, he should provide accommodation for that labour. That, he thought, was the humane intention of the Bill. But he thought it would be right to place some restrictions upon the relations of the employers and the employed. He thoroughly sympathized with the labourer, and he was sorry to say to the Committee that the clause which he had on the Paper would be excluded from their consideration. In that clause he offered improvable ground on which to labour, and in that lay his hope for the relief of the labour market, which, at the present time, was overstocked.
§ MR. GILLsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue) would not press his Amendment. He objected to the fixity of tenure to the labourer. The farmer was only allowed to build a certain number of cottages. If these got into the possession of two labourers, who turned out to be idle and drunken men, and unable to do his work, if he left them on his land he would have no means to build cottages for any other labourers, and he would be perfectly at the mercy of these men when they knew that they had fixity of tenure. They might act in a different way if they knew that the farmer could turn them out.
THE O'DONOGHUEobserved, that if the labourer got drunk, and was unable to work, as was suggested by his hon. Friend, the clause gave the tenant power to dismiss him. He did not think that there was anything in the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman who talked about the clause binding the labourer down to his holding. There was nothing to bind him to his holding in it.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not like to offer any decided opinion upon any 1681 question with regard to the labourer, for it seemed to him to be a very complicated and difficult question; and it was exceedingly difficult to know what effect certain provisions would have. But with regard to the statement of the hon. Member for Tralee, it seemed to him that it was a proposition in which he coincided—namely, that the party who supplied the allotment should not be the landlord but the tenant. The tenant farmer was more likely to know the amount of labour that he was likely to require than the landlord was for him; and, as a commercial speculation, for a landlord to build cottages, it would be perfectly unprofitable, and would not re-imburse him for the outlay. Therefore, in his opinion, the two parties who ought to come together in this matter were the tenant and the labourer. This clause had been unfairly criticized with reference to the statutory term. The principle embodied in this Amendment was very much embodied in the Bill with regard to the holdings of farmers from landlords, because in this clause there was a statutory term for 15 years, and a particular rent; but in the case of certain misconduct of the labourer, the arrangement should cease and determine. They had a similar provision with regard to the holdings of farmers and landlords. If a farmer committed a breach of statutory conditions, he would lose his interest in the holding; so that it seemed, in principle, the two cases were equal. He did not mean to argue that it was a sound principle that there should be such a thing as a statutory term. It seemed to him that this was a very reasonable clause.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 78: Majority 61.—(Div. List, No. 327.)
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had a clause to propose which deserved the serious attention of the Committee. They had given power to the tenant to enable him to purchase his holding under certain conditions. They had also given power to the Court to purchase properties under certain conditions, and he now asked that under certain circumstances they should allow the landlord to get the Commission to purchase his holding from him. He had 1682 amended this clause on more than one occasion. He had endeavoured to simplify it as much as possible by trying to deal only with holdings that came under the statutory conditions which had been imposed. He proposed that when the tenant had asked for a reduction of rent, and statutory terms had been imposed, the landlord should be able, through the Commission, to sell the holding. Looking at the Bill as it now stood, if it became an Act, it would inflict upon many landlords gross injustice. It would reduce rents where hitherto they had been fair and reasonable. It would place the landlord in a totally different position to that which he had ever held before. In 1870 any proposals of this kind would have been met by a corresponding compensation, and he, therefore, ventured to ask that this very moderate amount of compensation, which he now proposed, should be awarded to the landlords. What was the great cry of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House? Their great cry had been that there were 660,000 tenants in Ireland who were entitled to become possessors of the soil. He saw the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) in his place opposite; and would he for one moment get up and say that his great object had not been to enable these tenants to become the possessors of the soil which they now occupied? Hero he was offering them another opportunity of purchasing their holdings from the Commission. He proposed to give the landlord an opportunity to sell at a fair and reasonable price to the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman to whom he had alluded had argued this question; but it had been still more strongly argued by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who had said that his great object was to get the estates of the landlords by fairly paying for them. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) saw the difficulties that would be raised by the Prime Minister as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the way of the acceptance of this proposal; but when they came to this House and asked for a Bill of this kind they were bound to look at all sides of the case. He ventured to say that he had put the present case fairly before the Government, and had argued reasonably enough that where the landlord was un- 1683 fairly damnified by this Act, they were bound to compensate him; and he asked them to do that by giving to the tenant an opportunity of purchasing from the Commission a holding at the instance of the landlord. There was something beyond all this to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee. He would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), who was so thoroughly acquainted with all these matters, that this Bill, in its present form, was likely to do very serious injury to the proprietors of small holdings. In the Act of 1848, where they asked people, whoever they might be, to purchase the land in Ireland under the Encumbered Estates Court, they gave the purchasers a title, and enabled them to raise the rents. Many of them had laid out the whole of their capital; and now, when it was proposed to lower the rents, they would be reduced to a point of starvation. What was a fair thing to do under the circumstances? Why, to purchase the property, and to enable people whom they had inveigled into purchasing the land to give it up. If they did not do this the Act would prove a gross injustice to all the small proprietors in Ireland. He would appeal to the Irishmen he saw around him, whether what he said was not really the case? The large properties in Ireland were let at a much lower rent than the small ones, and the reduction would not be so great in their case, so that, in all probability, the Bill would not bring ruin to the proprietors of the larger properties. He would appeal to all those interested in the welfare of Ireland, whether he was not right, and whether, if the Bill passed in its present form, they would not be really expropriating from Ireland the class of small proprietors? If this Amendment were not accepted, what would the Court do? They would take the opinion of the land agents as to what was the value of the property, and the large properties would rule the small ones. The small properties would be found to suffer very materially, and many of their proprietors would be ruined. It was because he believed it was neither the wish nor the object of that Committee to drive out of Ireland the very class of people which, by the Act of 1848 they established there, that he brought forward this proposal. His 1684 clause was a moderate, fair, and reasonable one, and he appealed to the Committee to support it.
§ New Clause proposed, after Clause 20, insert the following clause:—
§ (Purchase of holdings by Land Commission in certain cases.)
§ "The landlord of any 6 holding may, within twelve months after the same becomes subject to statutory conditions, at the instance of the tenant, give the prescribed notice to the Land Commission requiring the Land Commission to purchase such holding, and forthwith, after receipt of such notice, the Land Commission shall purchase such holding, for such sum as may be agreed upon between the landlord and the Land Commission, or as, failing agreement, may be determined by arbitration in manner by this Act prescribed: Provided always, That the Land Commission may appoint any Land Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner to be an arbitrator to act together with an arbitrator to be appointed by the landlord for the purposes of such arbitration: Provided also, That where such holding is subject to incumbrances, or any doubt exists as to the title, the Land Commission may, unless satisfied with the indemnity or terms given by the landlord, decline to make such purchase as aforesaid.
§ "Any holding so purchased by the Land Commission may be sold by the Land Commission to the tenant of the same, in accordance with the provisions of this Act with respect to the sale of holdings to tenants, or subject to the tenancy in the same to any other person."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERIn the very last night of the debate we have a very important clause submitted to us, which, if adopted, would entirely change the nature of the Bill. I cannot imagine the suggestion of any clause which could have been more important, because its effect would be to impose upon the State the compulsory purchase of any estate a landlord might wish to sell. [An hon. MEMBER: Not the estate, but the holding.] Well, it comes to the same thing, because the holdings constitute the estate. The clause would apply to all holdings and to every estate the tenant or the landlord of which has applied to the Court, and the holding has come under statutory conditions. In all those cases the hon. and gallant Member proposes that the landlord shall have the power of compelling the State to purchase. That might go to an extent 1685 which, it appears to me, might be exceedingly disadvantageous. What we have do neup to this point is this. We have stated that the Government, or the Land Commission, may come in and purchase estates or holdings for the sake of selling them to the tenant. This is a very different matter. The proposal before us is that the State must purchase from the landlord, and may sell to the tenant; and the final result of that undoubtedly would be that the State would become a very large landowner, probably the largest permanent landowner in Ireland. I do not think that would be an advantageous result. The State steps in for the purpose of facilitating both sides agreeing to the purchase of the property by a tenant, and the tenant is allowed, all parties being agreeable, to purchase the fee-simple of his holding. But that is a very different thing from the landlord being able to make the State buy the holding; because there is no security whatever that the State, subsequently, will be able to sell to the tenant. The State may, therefore, as I say, become the largest permanent landowner in Ireland, if this clause is adopted. The hon. and gallant Member justifies that on this ground. He says the clause would not apply to large properties. Well, I am not at all sure that would be the case. I am not at all sure that large landowners would not take advantage of it; but whether they would or would not, the hon. and gallant Member justifies it on the ground that small landowners would take advantage of it, because, he says, this Bill would reduce them otherwise to starvation point. What right has he to suppose that? The Bill merely contemplates that the holdings should be sold at a fair rent. Why should we throw on the tribunal, which is to fix a fair rent, the slur that it will reduce the rents in the case of small holdings to starvation point? There is no reason whatever to say that. I think this Bill will be justified by what will happen, and I think the final result of the measure, within a few years, will be that the landowners of Ireland, small and large, will be better off than they are at this moment. Therefore, there is no reason for the State to step in in this way. I hope the Committee understands the exceeding width and importance of this clause, which we are asked to pass on the last night of the Committee on this Bill—a 1686 cause the effect of which, in all probability, would be to make the Government—that is, the taxpayers of the Three Kingdoms—by far the largest landowners in Ireland.
§ RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, it was perfectly true, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had moved one of the most important Amendments that could possibly have been brought forward on this Bill. In considering this Amendment, he could not help recalling some of the phases through which it had passed. It did not altogether owe its origin to this side of the House. It had been put down in very much the same form—he thought in almost, if not quite, the same words—[Sir WALTER B. BATTTELOT: Not quite.]—in almost the same words by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Eastern Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Sir John Ramsden). The Amendment had been put down with a tremendous flourish. It was put down shortly afterwards by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Honeage), and that hon. Member had succeeded in running the Government to a division in which they had only a majority of 25. Encouraged and elated by what was almost tantamount to a victory, the hon. Baronet (Sir John Ramsden) put on the Paper a similar Amendment at a later stage; and they had every right to believe, from conversations that had taken place, that this was the great rallying-point of the Whig Party—that the Amendment was to be supported by the entire strength of the Whig Party, which was, in all likelihood, to put the Government in a minority if they resisted it, and which was also, as far as they could understand, to be supported by independent Members from Ireland. That was some time ago. But the division on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby had a most extraordinary effect, and had led to some extraordinary incidents. A Circular was issued by the Birmingham Caucus, warning the Whigs that their conduct in regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby had been such as to bring on them the censure of the Liberal Party, and that if they persisted in this evil course of bringing forward Amend- 1687 ments to which the Liberal Government could not assent, they would have no chance of being again retured to Parliament in the Liberal interest. The effect of that on the hon. Baronet and his Friends opposite had been surprising. The Whigs had seen clearly enough that the effect of the Bill would be to plunder certain classes, and their desire had been to offer some compensation. But where was the Whig Party now—where were the unfortunate and miserable Whigs? He did not see one—he did not see a single one of the gallant 35 who followed the hon. Member for Great Grimsby into the Lobby. He saw the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), who was not altogether unconnected with the Birmingham Caucus, and he offered him his humble congratulations upon the success which had attended the celebrated Circular—on the effect that it had produced on this Whig coterie. The Whigs had abandoned their Amendments; they had run from the battle. It was to be hoped that, like those who fought and ran away, they would "live to fight another day." Now, the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was left alone in his glory to move this Amendment. Its principle was such that if it had not been for the Bill—if it had been proposed by itself—it was not such as his hon and gallant Friend would have brought forward. The Committee had, to a certain extent, abolished a great many of the rights of ownership, and what they might call the amenities of ownership. Before the measure was brought in, a man had rights and privileges which, in the event of the measure passing, he would no longer possess. Hon. Members opposite said that the Bill would not place the landlord in a worse position than he was in before. Well, as to the actual collection of rent he was not sure that that would not be so; but there were other privileges and rights connected with the ownership of property besides the mere collection of rent. There was the right and privilege of improving land and spending money on it, of separating farms and adding to them, of erecting farm buildings or taking them away, or of converting them to other purposes. All these rights the landlord had now, but they would vanish when the Bill passed. They had taken away these rights, which were as sub- 1688 stantial as anything they had given to the tenant, and they reduced him to the position of Shylock, to whom they would give nothing but what was in the bond. The landlords replied to them—"Now, you say you deprive me of part of my property, and I call on you to take the whole." That was the principle pursued in all railway legislation which was effected for the benefit of the community. They said to a Railway Company that proposed to take a portion of a person's property—"You shall not take a part without the whole." ["No, no!"] Well, he ought to have some knowledge upon this question. He had had some experience with regard to it, because he had succeeded in defeating a Bill which proposed to subvert that very principle. The whole principle of railway legislation had been that a Railway Company had no business to spoil a man's property unless they were prepared to buy the owner out. ["No, no!"] Yes; it was absolutely so, and all the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex asked was that they should deal in the same way with the Irish landowners. They were not legislating for the benefit of the Irish landowner, they were legislating with the object of securing peace in Ireland, and for benefiting the people of Ireland; and if, for that object, they interfered with private rights and the privileges of private landowners, they must be prepared to pay the penalty—they must be prepared to purchase them out altogether. There was nothing he would look on with greater fear and alarm than seeing all the Irish landlords bought out. It seemed to him that the Government wished to leave the Irish landlord in the odious position of being a rent-charger—of having nothing to do but to exact a tax from the people of Ireland, and simply because they dared not come in and take that duty upon themselves. They were making the landlords the buffers between the Irish people and themselves, and it was that that his hon. and gallant Friend wished to avert. If the Government chose to initiate legislation of this sort, and, without compensation of any kind, to plunder individuals, he would say to them—"Face the mob you have excited yourself. Take the responsibility of collecting the rent yourself, and do not throw it upon a class whom you refuse to protect." The ob- 1689 ject of the Amendment was to bring before the Government the real responsibility they had taken up in this matter. There were many landlords in Ireland who had devoted their lives to the improvement of their land and the advancement of their tenants. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, there were many of this kind in Ireland; but they would not be prepared to stop in the country one hour the moment they were deprived of the power of doing good, and the moment they were placed in the odious position of being merely tax-gatherers. The Amendment was one which would not have been proposed had it not been for what had gone before. Remembering what the landlords had done in Ireland, he was prepared to assist his hon. and gallant Friend in endeavouring to protect them from the hateful position into which it was now sought to place them.
MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he did not propose to follow the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) through all the details of his interesting, although somewhat excited speech. It was a mystery to him how the noble Lord was able so frequently to work himself up to such a pitch of excitement. What was the grievance? When the statutory condition was seriously contemplated it would be found simply to mean that the Court was to fix a fair rent for a fair period. He could not understand how the noble Lord could take such an exaggerated view of the hardship on the landlord of having that fair rent fixed. The Amendment involved the adoption of an altogether new principle not hitherto to be found in the Bill, because, up to this moment, that part of the measure dealing with the sale of estates was entirely voluntary. The estates were to be purchased where the landlords were willing to sell, and where the Land Commission was willing to buy, the Land Commission, however, having first ascertained that the tenants themselves were willing to purchase. How was the new principle sought to be justified by the hon. and gallant Gentleman? He put his point very clearly, and it was this—that under the operation of this Bill the rents of the small landlords of Ireland would be reduced to what was called starvation point. What did that mean? Were the words "starvation point" used as synonymous with the words "fair rent;" because, if they were not, how was the 1690 starvation point reached? All the Court would have to do would be to fix a fair rent. What was the next stage of the argument? This proposal was supposed to be for the benefit of the landlords, but how was it to benefit them? Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman suppose that the purchase of an estate upon a rent which he described as at starvation point would satisfy the landlord? If all that it was worth was to be given, and if the value was as was described by the hon. and gallant Member, how was the small landlord to benefit? He left the hon. and gallant Member, when he came to address the Committtee, to explain this. The hon. and gallant Gentleman could only hope that by the machinery laid down in this clause the small landowner might get more than his estate was worth; because, unless that was so, no benefit at all was conferred upon the small landowner. He would point out that this clause did not provide at all for tenants being willing to purchase. All that was necessary to satisfy the conditions of the clause was that the Land Court should buy at the instance of the landlord. The Land Commission might in that way be asked to buy up many, and those the most unsuitable, estates in Ireland; and, therefore, he submitted that the proposal was faulty in principle and would not serve the purpose the hon. and gallant Member had in view.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEThere can be no doubt that the objections raised to the clause moved by my hon. and gallant Friend, both by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. C. Russell), are objections of a clear and substantial character, and I have no doubt that my hon. and gallant Friend is perfectly conscious of the fact. At the same time, there are two sides to this question, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend has done well in bringing the matter before the Committee in the form in which he has introduced it. Let me remind the Committee of what has been said on former occasions as to this question of compensation. I will not allude to speeches made 10 years ago, when we were told that some of the things now proposed were of such a character that they could not be recognized, because they would give the landlord claims to compensation which 1691 it would be inconvenient to deal with. But even in the discussions on this very Bill itself we have had expressions of a general character from the Prime Minister, in which he has used such language with regard to compensation as implied that the matter was one he did not decline to consider on principle, but which he would put aside until he saw during the progress of the Committee whether any case for compensation could be made out. We have always held throughout these discussions that it was quite possible on a principle to come before Parliament and say—"Now, by this legislation you have inflicted a serious blow on the landlord class, and you have done that for a purpose that you consider to be of national importance; and if you do, for the purpose which you consider to be of national importance, injure a particular class of society, it is but reasonable that some compensation should be made to them." Well, if that is so, you come to the difficult question, how is the compensation to be assessed, and how is it to be discovered what the compensation shall be? The suggestion which has been made by more persons than one, by persons sitting in different parts of the House, and which is embodied in the proposal now before us, is this—that instead of attempting to assess compensation in particular cases, you ought to allow the landlord, when he feels himself to be aggrieved by the measures you have adopted, to compensate himself by selling that property which he is no longer able advantageously to hold. There are a great many classes of cases in which the landlord will undoubtedly be the sufferer, and will have a claim against the Legislature which has made him a sufferer. No doubt, the man who holdst he handle of the whip looks upon a whipping from a different point of view to the man who feels the lash; and Members of this House, no doubt, look upon the results of this measure in a different light to the unfortunate men who have done the best they can, and who have made great sacrifices for the improvement of the country in which they live. These landlords will have to suffer considerable inconvenience and loss—a loss which must be measured not only by the direct loss they sustain in consequence of the reduction in the amount of their rents, but 1692 indirectly by the apprehension which must necessarily arise through the power of Parliament of further reducing their position and income by future legislation in the same direction. It does not seem an unreasonable proposition that a landlord who finds himself in this position—that on the one hand he will be odious to the country and his tenant as a mere rent-charger, with no power of executing improvements; and on the other hand finds himself deprived of the income he has enjoyed, and who is left subject to heavy burdens that he is not able to bear, and who will always remember that he was encouraged to invest his capital and take up these burdens by the State and by Parliament itself—it does not, I say, seem unreasonable that a landlord so situated should feel his position to be a very unfair one. It is not at all unnatural that he should desire to be relieved from that position. Then comes the question of policy. Is it desirable that you should compel men in that position against their will to remain on their properties? Then comes my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal. No doubt, that was met by most serious objections. It was met by this great objection in practice—how is the Commission or the State to manage if the whole or the greater part of the land of Ireland is presented to them for purchase, and they are compelled to take it? My own suggestion, however, would be that the difficulty might be got over by giving the landlord the option of selling his property at a price which, while it would save him from utter ruin, would offer him no undue inducement to sell. Take the judicial rent as your basis, and give a limited number of years' purchase—say 20 years. By so doing you surely would not tempt the man to sell. You should give that kind of relief that is given in the Money Market, if I may use the illustration, in a time of panic when you suspend the Bank Act. When people find that they can get money at 10 per cent, they are not so anxious to run after it. The knowledge that they can get it gives relief. I admit that this clause, taken by itself, while it is valuable as enabling my hon. and gallant Friend and those who agree with him to state their case, and point out what the difficulty in principle is, would require a good deal more pressure before it could form any legislative measure; and, look- 1693 ing at the circumstances in which we stand, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not think it necessary to call upon us to divide. ["Oh, oh!"] I do not understand what hon. Gentlemen mean by that expression; perhaps they call for a division. But I have expressed my own opinion that the clause contains in itself the recognition of a principle which Parliament ought to be slow indeed to infringe, and that is, that when you sacrifice the interests of a class for what you consider a general benefit, you ought to be called upon to make compensation. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, perhaps it is one of those principles which is going out of fashion, but it is one for which I have some respect. It is, perhaps, the remnant of an old prejudice, but some of us think it is the remnant of an old principle. I should be sorry to see it entirely abandoned. Though I could not support the clause as it now stands, I think it does contain a germ of a principle that it is desirable to recognize.
MR. GLADSTONEIf, as has been said, Parliament is about to invade the property of the Irish landlords, this question of compensation becomes a very serious one indeed, and one concerning which, if we are prepared to deal with it at all, we ought to speak in most decisive terms. I certainly, in that sense, see no advantage that can be gained by following the course of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and telling the hon. and gallant Baronet behind him that, though his proposal contains a very important principle, he ought not, in the circumstances, to press it. If, in truth, the principle of the clause is an important one, we ought not, as a Government, to be content to get rid of it on the strength of a few sentences of fair words, which will bear no fruit whatever. That, at any rate, is not my idea of dealing with questions of property. I remember—and I do not suppose many hon. Members will have forgotten—the period at which the late Government actually confiscated the property of the owners of advowsons in Scotland, by giving them, in the shape of compensation, a price which bore no relation to the market price of their property. We, in 1869, having to deal with the holders of advowsons in Ireland, provided that every one of them should receive the full market price of 1694 his property. This we held to be the true principle on which the compensation should be based; and this is the principle on which we hold that the question should be approached on the present occasion, if approached at all. I do not hesitate to say that I look upon this matter as vital to the Bill; and I am determined, as far as I am personally concerned—and I think I can, speaking for my Friends near me, say that they share in my determination—that, in doing our duty to the several classes in Ireland who are immediately affected by the Bill, we shall not forget the duty we owe to the nation at large. If these classes, either or both of them, have a just claim to compensation in consequence of the manner in which their interests will be affected by this Bill, we are bound, as a Parliament, to give it to them; but, if not, it is our determination, as it is also our obligation as a Government, to offer a firm resistance to any claim to compensation that may be put forth on their behalf, and not to palter with the matter by setting forth stories about possible coming evils. This claim for compensation has been too often urged. At the time of the Corn Law agitation an immense advantage was conferred upon the Irish landlords, and they were compensated by a very heavy charge upon the Public Treasury. On various other occasions, from time to time, claims for compensation have been urged upon that patient and enduring creature, the public of this country; but, in my opinion, those claims have never yet been made good in reason and in argument, nor, in my opinion—for that matter—has a much more plausible case been set forth than the one which is now before the Committee. I do not hesitate, with regard to that case, to say that if it can be shown, on clear and definite experience at the present time, that there is a probability, or if after experience should prove that, in fact, ruin and heavy loss is likely to be or has been brought upon any class in Ireland by the direct effect of this legislation, that is a question which we ought to look very directly in the face. But what I contend is that there is no such case before us at the present time, and that the Member of this House who votes for compensation as now proposed must vote against his convictions, in that there is no case 1695 under this Bill for claiming compensation. In the year 1870 the claim for compensation, though occasionally mentioned in the course of the debates, did not take any substantive form; but there was a great deal more to be said at that time in support of claims for compensation than there is now, because, in 1870, there was this fact patent that by the law of the land anterior to the passing of the Bill and the making of the Act, improvements on the holdings which were made by the tenants were the property of the landlords, and by the Act of 1870 that particular property of the landlords became distinctly and undeniably the property of the tenants. Therefore, in 1870 there was, at least, a primâ facie case for compensation. We, I may say, did not believe in the existence of a real case for claiming compensation. We believed—and our belief has been borne out by experience—that the Act of 1870 in the aggregate of its operations went to improve, and not to depreciate, the value of the property of the landlords. Upon what ground at the present moment, therefore—and I am not speaking of anything that experience may hereafter develop, as to which I have my own opinions and expectations—is it that, having regard to the proposed legislation now before us, compensation is to be demanded? If it is to be demanded, according to this clause, because a judicial rent and statutory terms are about to be established, all that I can say is, that a judicial rent can only be fixed, and statutory terms can only be established, according to the judgment of a dispassionate and impartial judicial body who will have to decide between man and man according to facts proved before them. I admit that it is unusual, and requires very strong and exceptional circumstances to justify the passing of an Act of Parliament which contemplates the fixing of a judicial rent; but I deny that it is an injury to any one class in particular. Why is it, or can it be, an injury to the landlord to have fixed a fair rent; and, if such a fact could be possible, why is it not an injury to the tenant? If you are to compensate the landlord for having fixed a fair rent, which may, in certain cases, be a reduced rent, why should you not compensate the tenant when it is perfectly possible that the fair rent fixed by 1696 the Court may be an increased rent? No man can say, at the present moment, in how many cases this will happen. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), than whom there are few men more qualified to speak on this subject, has distinctly indicated his opinion that many of the absentee landlords have, as it were, compounded for the fact that they were absentee landlords, and performed the duty pertaining to such landlords by giving their tenants the benefit of low rents. As I then stated, my opinion was that the operation of the Bill would, in many cases, have the effect of raising the rents, and thereby creating discontent. I quite agree that if Parliament were to pass a law providing that rents in Ireland should be universally reduced to Griffith's valuation, that would be a fair case for compensation; but in the present case, the State, on the ground of policy, on the ground of humanity, and on the ground of general utility, interfered with private property. No one can doubt that at one time the State endeavoured to fix wages; but no one, as far as I know, has ever heard that compensation was ever claimed from the State for persons whose wages were so reduced. This, I take it, was a much stronger case than the one now before the Committee. The State has again and again, as hon. Members know, limited the access of employers of labour to the labour market, and has made labour comparatively dear by means of that action; but employers of labour did not on that account come to this House and make and lodge a claim for compensation. I am quite sure that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has recently addressed the House was well intended as far as landlords are concerned. I cannot refrain from saying that I still feel the greatest doubt whether, in the course which he has taken, he has conferred upon them any favour. I would be bold enough now to repeat in effect what I said in 1870, which was that I then believed—the result having justified my expression of belief—that in a moderate but, at the same time, perfectly appreciable degree the effect of the legislation then proposed has been to raise the capital value of estates in Ireland, as far as the landlords are concerned. I may repeat that Her Majesty's Government entertain the same hope as 1697 far as this Bill is concerned. I do not now propose to enter into the question of whether the action of the Court in fixing a judicial rent may not, upon the whole, lower the rents rather than raise thorn, in its first operation. It is perfectly possible that this might be so, and I have no doubt that such a result is largely anticipated on the other side of the House; but if, in its first effects, the action of the Court has that tendency, then all I can say is, that it is perfectly within the probabilities of the case that its ulterior tendency in giving confidence, in producing harmony between landlords and tenants, and in bringing about a larger development of the productive powers of the soil may be to repay the landlords for the incidental mischief of the Act twofold or threefold. Why, I would ask, is Ireland to be doomed for ever to that state of things in which there should be such an absence of confidence, and such apprehension of danger impending, as that no one will be willing to invest their capital in land in that country, upon terms more nearly approaching to the settled state of things which we enjoy in this country. Without presuming to attempt to determine the future relations of the judicial rents to the present rents, I will only say that I, for one, shall be bitterly disappointed with the operation of the Act if the property of the landlords in Ireland does not come to be worth more than 20 years' purchase on the judicial rent. In this hopo I probably have with me the sympathies of Irishmen themselves. They have naturally a feeling for their country, and do not wish to lag behind in the race of civilization. I believe, therefore, that no legislation, however liberal to the tenant, can be really satisfactory unless, in all the relations of social life, it is favourable to the joint interests of all the classes concerned in the great matters which we are endeavouring to settle.
§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he merely wished to remark, in reference to one observation which had been made, that advowsons in Scotland never had a commercial value; and that it, therefore, could not be said that in the transfer of advowsons in that country property of commercial value was transferred from one person to another.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR, said, he had only one fault to find with the speech of 1698 the Prime Minister, which was that it had no reference to the proposed clause. He could only suppose that the right hon. Gentleman had made his speech in anticipation of something that was likely to be said in "another place." As far as he could understand it, the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had given no hint as to compensation, but had left it to the Committee to do no more than discuss the terms of the clause before it. It seemed clear that the Prime Minister looked forward to the perpetuation of landlordism in Ireland; but, as he (Mr. O'Connor) believed, the main advantage of the Bill would be that it would enable the Irish tenants to elbow landlordism out of the country. He did not admit that the Bill went as far as he could wish; but, as its tendency was in the direction he had indicated, it was, to some extent, satisfactory. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had pointed out that the effect of the clause might be to throw a large quantity of land on the hands of the Commission, who might, perhaps, be compelled to buy at too high a price, and, therefore, injustice might be worked upon the tenants. The first of these objections was met by the provision that the purchase should not take place until a fair rent had been fixed and the tenant secured in his holding. He admitted the force of the observation that the effect of the clause might be to put a large quantity of land into the possession of the Commissioners; but this arose from the fact that while the purchase of the land from the landlords was compulsory, the letting of it to the tenants was optional, as far as the tenants were concerned. That, however, would not prove an insuperable barrier to the working of the Bill, if the Government would provide that the holdings should only be purchased if the tenant was willing to buy them at the price fixed by the Commission, and to make such other provisions as would bring about a joint proprietorship between landlords and tenants in the soil.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he had always held that the landlord system should, as far as possible, give way to the tenants; but he admitted that the landlords were entitled to compensation. The Prime Minister spoke of this clause as simply a mat- 1699 ter of compensation to the landlord for imaginary wrongs; but he could find nothing in it to compensate a dispossessed landlord. No matter whether the rent was fixed fairly or not, the Bill made a material change in the condition of the landlord with regard to the soil. It took away from him certain distinet and very substantial proprietorial privileges, and reduced him to the level of one merely dealing with a tenant for rent. He approved of that; he was glad that the Court could step in between the landlord and the tenant; but still it did reduce the landlord to a level much below that which he had previously occupied. The landlord was therefore fairly entitled to say—"You have altered my position altogether. You have done this probably for the good of the country; I admit that, but you have changed my social status and taken away what I have always believed to be my rights, and you ought to allow me to go out of the land, and you ought to buy it from me." He did not want to do injustice to the landlord any more than to the tenant; but they had to consider, above all things, just now the condition of the Irish tenants, and the prospect of forming a peasant proprietary in that country. For that reason he was anxious that as many landlords as could be induced to leave their land should do so as soon as possible; and he would support any proposal for enabling the Government to get possession of the land and to form a peasant proprietary upon it. He should be false to the purpose he came to the House to serve if he did not support every proposal which endeavoured to bring a larger quantity of land under the control of the Government, in order that they might plant a peasant proprietary upon it; and, therefore, he should support the Amendment, although he did not often find himself in sympathy with the advocates of the landlords' claims.
§ COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he could not think that the hon. Members for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) and Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) expressed the real opinions of the Irish people upon this point; and certainly they were not acting in their interest. The Committee was now at the last stage of a Bill which admittedly would confer immense benefits on the occupiers of land in Ireland; and that Bill, whether 1700 effective or not, was framed upon certain principles—the principle of voluntary sale of their property by landlords, and the principle of voluntary acquisition of the same by the Commission. His hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) brought forward this clause at the last moment to establish a totally different principle; but he did not think it was just, because he could not admit that the landlord who had let his land at a fair rent was injured to the extent of 1d. by this Bill. Therefore, he should oppose the Amendment; but how stood it with Members representing popular constituencies in Ireland? The Prime Minister had said he could not accept this Amendment, which would vitally alter the whole structure of the Bill—no Government could; but the hon. and gallant Member proposed to put the House in the position of endangering and imperilling the Bill by an Amendment which, however good in itself, was incompatible with the Bill, and which the Prime Minister and the Government—without whom the Bill could not be carried—stated would be fatal to the Bill if accepted. For these reasons he had not the slightest hesitation in predicting that public opinion in Ireland would support those who supported the clause in opposition to the Amendment.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONremarked, that the arguments which had been advanced exactly illustrated the principle upon which this Bill had been conducted. The Prime Minister said the clause provided compensation, but there was not a word about compensation; and then the Prime Minister, having mis-named the clause, said whoever voted for compensation voted against the Bill. If the clause meant compensation, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) supported it, and proposed merely to take 20 years' purchase, the Prime Minister contended that 33 years was the proper period. He said that was the average price payable for land in this country; but that was a very startling assertion. There was a great deal in the argument of the Prime Minister in which all must agree, because he did not think anyone could contend that the mere establishing of a Judicial Court to arbitrate between the landlord and tenant and fix a fair rent 1701 constituted in itself any claim on the part of the landlord for compensation. But what was the object of establishing this Court? It was not to relieve the tenant from the excessive pressure produced by excessive demands for land. The object was, according to the words of the Act, to enable the tenant for the time being of every holding to sell his tenancy for the best price he could get. That was to say that whilst, on the one hand, the Bill deliberately took from the landlord the benefit of the market price, it did so in order to hand over to the tenant something that did not belong to him to enable him to get the full benefit of the market value of the commodity. And it was distinctly admitted that there would be cases where the tenant would sell something which he had neither acquired nor created nor bought. The Bill deprived the landlords of the market price which excessive competition had produced, because they were few, and gave it to the tenants because they were many, and that was the great fault of the Bill. The Prime Minister was very sanguine that the creation of this tenant right would produce tranquillity from one end of the country to the other, and had alluded to the condition of Ulster. He did not know that Donegal was in a more satisfactory state than the rest of Ireland, or that the Ulster right existed in a less degree there than in any other part; but the real reason why the North of Ireland was in a better condition than the rest of the country was that the manufactures absorbed the surplus population. If any hon. Member assumed that because the North of Ireland was more peaceable and quiet, and that the relations between landlords and tenants there were better than in other parts, that must not be attributed merely to tenant right, but to a number of circumstances which did not exist in any other parts of the country.
§ MR. A. MOOREsaid, he regarded this as a most important Amendment, and one which could not be disposed of hurriedly. It was well worthy of the consideration of the Committee, for it contemplated a class of men with small means and heavily mortgaged, who could not afford the possible reduction which the Court might inflict. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. 1702 C. Russell) said—"Oh, but his rent must have been too high if the Court reduces it to starvation point." Not at all; he might have let his land, as men sold coal and iron, at the best possible price; and the Court might compel him to reduce the rent. But he might be heavily mortgaged, and utterly unable to live if the rent was reduced; and the object of this Amendment was not, perhaps, to give the "upset" price in the market, but to give him something by which he could leave his land, with all the staff he had been accustomed to, and possibly find a happier home in some other country, where he could set himself up in some other walk in life with the remains of his property. The Amendment was a golden bridge for the retreating landlords, and was one which was quite necessary; for there would be many serious cases of people who could not afford to have their rents reduced. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had said high price meant high rent; but the tenant need not buy at all. He would have got his rent fixed, and it would be a case of caveat empton.
§ MR. DALYwished to bring the Committee back into the regions of common sense, and said, if the Court established a fair rent which was greatly less than the tenant had been paying, that was simply the redressing of a wrong; but he believed that in many cases the interposition of the Court would lead to the raising of the rent. It was assumed by some hon. Members that the principle of the Bill was confiscation of the landlords' property. He denied that, for he believed the principle was the restitution to the tenant of the right that was acknowledged in 1370. The hon. Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had expressed his anxiety to see the landlords elbowed out of Ireland. He had no great anxiety to see them elbowed out; but he had a strong objection to their being elbowed out with their hands in the pockets of the State. There were plenty of people outside the State who would be willing to invest their money at 5 per cent if security was given and peace was restored to Ireland. It was asserted by Irish Conservative Members that the landlords were being wronged; but he repudiated that, for what was being done was a return to the 1703 position of right between man and man. He was willing to accord the landlords full and fair rents, but he was not willing to go beyond that; and he knew that if this Amendment was passed it would place the Government in a most embarrassing position, and would lead to their occupation of great tracts of land. He entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk that a greater injury to the tenant could not be effected than by the State becoming owners of land. On all these grounds he opposed the Amendment.
§ MR. E. COLLINSobserved, that if the clause did not mean competition he could not tell what it meant; and he would advise his hon. Friends on the other side below the Gangway to hesitate very much before they consented to this Amendment. He would like to ask the hon. and gallant Member who made this proposal whether he made it in the interest of the tenant or in the interest of the landlord? He knew that the hon. and gallant Member would be disposed to act in favour of the landlords; but he would advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment unless the hon. and gallant Member so modified it as to provide that if a landlord bought, he should do so on terms agreed to by the tenant.
§ MR. DAWSONsaid, that what animated the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and an immense proportion of the Irish people was a desire to see the system of landlordism in Ireland abolished. He believed the landlords had been as much the victims of the legislation for Ireland as the tenants; and he would support the clause if it gave compensation. He did not believe it did; but he would pay the landlords well in order to restore the agricultural land to the working occupiers. If the price were an exaggerated price, it would be well repaid by the increased development of the land. If there was a compulsory purchase a handsome price must be paid, and conversely; but to make this clause practicable the tenant must be willing to buy and the landlord must be willing to sell. In that case he would compel the Court to buy the holding; and there was nothing in that to outrage the principles of commerce, there was nothing to warrant the Prime Minister in being 1704 frightened at the amount of compensation; and if the Amendment was modified by the hon. and gallant Member, he thought it might be acceptable to the Committee. At all events, he believed it would meet with acceptance by the people of Ireland on account of its sound policy.
§ MR. BLAKEsaid, he was averse to asking the Government to charge themselves with a quantity of land; and he suggested the insertion in the clause, after "Commission shall," the words, "after being satisfied that the land can be sold without loss to the State."
§ MAJOR O'BEIRNEobserved, that land in Ireland would become more valuable after this Bill was passed, and advised the Government to accept the Amendment.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had been pressed very much to insert in the clause a proviso that if the Commission purchased the property the tenant or someone else should purchase it from the Commission. To that he had no objection; but he must join issue with the Prime Minister on his remark that whoever voted for the clause voted against the principle of the Bill. There was nothing in the Bill which would be outraged or violated by his proposal. The Prime Minister himself had proposed that the market price should be absolutely abolished so far as the landlord was concerned, and that the Commission should regulate the price. Therefore, he maintained, the Prime Minister ought to vote for this Amendment. When the Slave Trade was abolished, the right hon. Gentleman thought it nothing that this country should give £20,000,000 for compensation, and this clause, although it did not amount to compensation, amounted to the right which the landlord ought to claim when deprived of the rights and amenities he had possessed. Something ought to be done to enable him to get rid of his property on fair and reasonable terms. He should be prepared to modify the clause as suggested, and he asked the Committee to support what he considered a fair, reasonable, and just proposal.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he thought the clause an eminently fair one, for he thought a man whose property was seriously affected by the Bill 1705 had a right to ask for an opportunity of getting rid of property which had been wholly changed in its nature. At the same time, accepting in good faith the statement of the Prime Minister that the proposal was in vital opposition to the principle of the Bill, and not desiring to throw any obstacle in the way of the Bill, he would not vote for the proposal.
§ MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he thought the remedy should be the same for the tenant as for the landlord; and if the Commission were to be forced to buy holdings where the rents were reduced, they ought to be required to buy a holding where the rents were raised.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 151: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 328.)
§ SIR WILLIAM PALLISERmoved to insert the following Clause after Clause 22:—
§ (Purchase by instalments.)
§ "Where the purchaser shall in any one year pay an instalment of six pounds per centum on the advance interest shall be charged for that year at the rate of three pounds per centum upon the advance or the unpaid balance thereof.
§ "Where the purchaser shall in any one year pay an instalment of over six pounds per centum on the advance, interest at the rate of three pounds per centum shall likewise be charged upon the unpaid balance or balances of the advance in the subsequent year or years in which the said excess payment shall make up the instalment or instalments paid in the said subsequent year or years to six pounds per centum on the advance.
§ "Excess fractional payments in separate years shall be added together, and when their sum shall be sufficient to increase the instalment in any one year to six pounds per centum on the advance, then interest for that year shall be charged at the rate of three pounds per centum upon the unpaid balance of the advance.
§ "All payments above five pounds per centum per annum on the advance, together with the allowances made to the purchaser by the State in respect of them, shall be placed to the credit of the purchaser, but shall nevertheless be available as a reserve fund until the advance is repaid; that is to say, where the purchaser shall in any subsequent year pay less than five pounds per centum on the advance, his default shall be made good from the reserve fund, and interest at the rate of ten shillings per centum upon the unpaid balance of the advance shall be deducted from the reserve fund for every pound or fraction of a pound taken from the reserve fund, and for which an allowance of ten shillings per centum upon the advance or the unpaid balance thereof had previously been made to the purchaser."
§ The hon. Gentleman said, that when 1706 the State made an advance to a tenant to enable him to purchase his farm, it was of the greatest importance that as soon as possible after the completion of the purchase a margin or reserve fund should be created. The advantages of the early creation of such a reserve fund were so great that it would be well worth while for the State, from a commercial point of view, to pay a little more, or rather to make a small allowance for the purpose of obtaining it. The benefit of these proposals to the landlord and tenant were so obvious that he would not take up the time of the Committee in going into them, and he would confine his remarks to the benefits which the State would derive from them. If there were no reserve fund, and if a series of bad seasons were to follow each other, and if, in consequence, the purchaser had failed to pay his instalments, the State might be forced to put the land up for sale, in order to recover the money advanced upon it. But owing to the bad seasons the land would not command so good a price, and when the land was sold the State might incur a heavy loss. If, moreover, the landlord had taken a second charge on the farm in part payment for it, and if the farm were sold as soon as the State had got back the loan and the interest, the landlord would be left out in the cold. It would, therefore, be most unwise for a landlord, when selling, to leave a portion of the purchase money, as some had suggested, as a second charge on the farm, under the Government scale of repayment. On the other hand, if Government would concede the advantages proposed in this clause, he thought the landlord might fairly make an arrangement with the tenant to take a second charge on the land if the tenant would covenant to repay the loan by 6 per cent instalments. The allowance off the interest to be made by the State, under this clause, would amount, in the first year, to 10s. per cent; but this allowance would decrease each year. If there were a farm which sold for £133 6s. 8d. the amount advanced by the State would be £100. In the first year the allowance upon that would be 10s. per cent, or the 1–200th part of £100. In the next year, as £3 would be paid off, the allowance would be 1–200th part of £97; and in the third year it would be the 1–200th part of £93 14s. 6d. 1707 These payments would thus become smaller and smaller, and would amount to only £6 15s. 9d. over the whole period of repayment. That would be a very small sum for the State to pay in return for the advantages. The whole debt would be repaid to the State in 23 years, 6 months, and 14 days; instead of requiring 35 years for repayment; and, as the money would come back in two-thirds of the time, it followed that £2,000,000 lent on these terms would go as far as £3,000,000 lent on the Government scale, and the investment would be much safer. Under the 5 per cent, or Government scale, only £8 0s. 11d. would be paid during the first five years; but under the 6 per cent scale the amount paid in five years would be £15 18s. 6d., leaving only £84 1s. 6d. to be repaid. Further, out of the £15 18s. 6d., a sum of £7 17s. 7d. would be available as a reserve fund for the State to draw upon if the tenant made default. The man would have 8 per cent practically laid by, and if in bad seasons he were unable to pay his obligatory instalments in full, then the local bank would assist him; whereas, if he had been paying 5 per cent instalments, there would be no reserve fund, and, therefore, he would not be able to get assistance from the bank. In this case, the State would be obliged to sell him out. A remarkable Bill was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury a few days ago to remit certain loans formerly made from the Consolidated Fund. It was entitled the Public Loans (Ireland) Remission Act; and the Schedule stated that repayments commenced in 1826, but that after the tithes disturbance in 1831 no further steps were taken for the recovery of the advances. Government should take every precaution to prevent a similar Bill becoming necessary a few years hence. His proposal was strictly consonant with the first principles of business, finance, trade, and political economy. In ordinary private business transactions they all knew that when goods were sold by a manufacturer they were generally paid for by a bill at three months, or 2½ per cent discount was allowed for ready money. A bill could generally be discounted at the rate of 4 per cent per annum, whereas the vendors were willing to make an allowance, for cash, at the 1708 rate of 10 per cent per annum, and to incur a loss at the rate of 6 per cent per annum for the purpose of avoiding the risk of bad debts and getting their money back quickly. These principles applied with equal force to the State as to private individuals. As he had said before, where a man had paid for five years instalments at the rate of 6 per cent he would become the owner substantially, and by that time there would be established a class of men who would be conservative in the best sense of the term, for then they would see and know what was within their reach; they would know that no reasonable amount of bad harvest could interfere between them and the unencumbered freehold at which they aimed. And when there was a class of men with a stake like that in the country there would be less necessity to keep up a vast body of police and troops, and the saving upon that head would more than counterbalance the little cost to the State for these allowances. The proposal also was good morally, because it would encourage thrift and providence. There was no doubt that sometimes the Irish farmers had very good seasons. When trade was brisk and work was plentiful in England, and when in consequence there was a large demand for beefsteaks and mutton chops, then there were fine prices for beef, mutton and butter, and then Irish farmers made large profits. But when those times came the ladies—namely, their wives and daughters, would never leave them alone till they got their money out of them to spend in wearing silk dresses and driving jaunting cars, &c.; but since his proposal was to give the farmer a bonus of no less than 50 per cent for every pound he paid over and above what he was obliged to pay, he was certain that the Irish farmer was quite astute enough to see the advantage of making pre-payments during the good times; and he did not think the farmer's wife would, under such circumstances, interfere with her husband in such a matter, but would, on the contrary, encourage him to lay the money by. As he had said before, the cost was £6 15s. 9d. spread over 23 years; and he trusted that the Government, seeing the very great advantage of the proposal, would accept it. He recommended it on the grounds of political economy, morality, and prudence.
1709§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. GLADSTONEIn the first place, from what the hon. Member has said, I have no doubt he understands this proposal himself. I give the fullest credit to the hon. Gentleman for understanding it. He has gone through a deal of trouble—he has taken immense pains, and shown how much the public will lose by it. They will lose £6 15s. for every £100, spread over three years.
§ SIR WILLIAM PALLISERNo; not unless the State has to pay £3 10s. per cent for the money.
§ SIR WILLIAM PALLISERNo; with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman. If the condition of the market would admit of the Government borrowing at 3 per cent, they would not incur any loss. And, perhaps, if I were permitted to explain——
MR. GLADSTONEI think I have gathered at least one definite and intelligible statement—the hon. Gentleman has not destroyed my impression in that respect—but I may venture to say that there is no part of his statement that I am able thoroughly to comprehend. I do not hesitate to say that nothing but the most minute actuarial calculation could possibly establish the proposition he lays down. With regard to certain statements of fact which I can detect in this Motion, it appears to be founded on two propositions—first, that the public can reckon on borrowing at an average rate of 3 per cent; and, secondly, that the administration of the money, the reserving of proper balances, the transmission of it to different quarters, and the collection in minute sums at a multitude of points from the people, is an operation which will cost just nothing at all. On these two propositions the proposal rests. They are both of them totally inadmissible. The established fact of borrowing by the public is that it cannot be done for less than £3 5s. per cent. And we know very well that some margin for the keeping and collection and borrowing the money for making the advances is absolutely necessary. I do not hesitate to say with regard to that 5s. per cent, left as a margin—I do 1710 not hesitate to say that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I heartily wish, in a pecuniary point of view, that I were rid of the whole concern, and I should be glad to see the hon. Gentleman himself or anybody else take it off our hands. It is a very considerable financial difficulty which we are undertaking for great political and social objects; but a proposition of this kind, that we should borrow at a rate which we know does not exist, and that we should advance and recover the money which we borrow without charge, is altogether unsound. There is, undoubtedly, an element of good sense in giving encouragement to those who are desirous to pre-pay, and if you want to do it, it is really the simplest thing in the world—you have only to make them an allowance of so much per cent. I am quite willing to look into this; but I can assure the hon. Gentleman, seriously, that he might as well have introduced his proposal writ out in sanskrit letters, for we should know just as much about it.
§ SIR WILLIAM PALLISERI may say that my proposal is founded upon an actuarial calculation that has been very carefully prepared. I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of it.
§ SIR WILLIAM PALLISERWould the right hon. Gentleman accept the proposal if I were to insert at the commencement the following condition:—
That when the condition of the money market will admit of it, without causing loss to the State,the allowance shall be granted; and if I were also to put at the end—When the condition of the money market will not admit of the full allowance of ½ per cent being made to the purchaser without causing loss to the State, the Court may make an allowance such as would not cause any loss to the State.
§ Clause negatived.
§ MR. MACFARLANEmoved, in page 18, after Clause 25, to insert the following Clause:—
§ (Powers of Commission over reclaimed lands.)
§ "In the case of waste land capable of reclamation the Land Commission may call upon the owners to take steps, within such time as they may deem reasonable for the reclamation thereof; and in default, the Land Commission may receive offers from tenants or other persons for 1711 allotments of such land for the purpose of reclamation in blocks of such size as they may deem suitable, and the Land Commission may grant possession of such allotments at such rents for such number of years as they may consider equitable and just, the tenant contracting to reclaim fixed portions of the land within fixed periods, the Land Commission reserving the right to resume possession in case of any failure on the part of the tenant to fulfil the said contract.
§ "At the termination of the period allowed for reclamation, the tenant or the landlord may apply to the Court to have a fair rent fixed, having regard to the tenant's labour and capital expended thereon. And the Court may grant statutory leases in the same manner as is provided in this Act for present tenants."
§ The hon. Gentleman said that under this clause, if the landlord did not act, the Land Commission would act for him, treating the property as the Court of Chancery might treat it, in trust for the landlord. To pass clauses providing money to be spent in reclamation without giving compulsory powers to the Land Commission to avail themselves of the land would be like passing a Railway Bill without giving a compulsory right to purchase the land through which the line was to pass. The proposal could not injure the landlord if he were willing to allow the laud to be reclaimed, because in that case it would not be operative, and if he were not willing it was for the good of the State that he should be compelled to permit reclamation. At the lowest estimate, there were 4,500,000 acres of waste lands in. Ireland. Of that, 1,000,000 acres were capable of being reclaimed; and, considering the amount of food that could be produced on so large an area, and the amount of employment that could be applied to it, it would be a most beneficial thing to provide for its compulsory reclamation. In addition to the 1,000,000 acres that could thus be gained for agricultural purposes, there was, at least, another 1,000,000 capable of being used for the planting of timber. If such a clause as this had been in force in Ireland 50 years ago, the landlords of the present day would have been very thankful, and they would have had good reason to be grateful for the compulsion put upon their forefathers. He made the proposal because it was for the public good, for the man who kept 1, or 10, or 1,000,000 acres unused as waste land was a public enemy. It was quite evident that the landlords of Ireland would not deal with these matters on 1712 their own account, and he had no belief in the scheme sketched out by the Government for reclamation by Joint Stock Companies which would never pay. But reclamation in small portions by tenants who would expend their own time and labour upon it when not otherwise engaged—time and labour which otherwise would have no money value—that was a kind of reclamation which would pay. He would like to know what portion of the land of Ireland cultivated at this moment had been reclaimed by the small tenants? He would venture to say that it was a very large proportion. But, in the case of reclamations in the past, the landlords had charged full rent for them. His proposal was that, after a proper time had been allowed for reclamation by the Commission, the landlord or the tenant might apply to the Court to have a fair rent fixed, taking into consideration the fact that all but the raw material belonged to the tenant. If hon. Members would only read the clause, he was sure there would be very little opposition to it.
§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. GLADSTONEThis is a question of great importance and of great complication; but the hon. Member will find that in all cases when you take compulsory powers, and endeavour to act upon people against their will, it requires the greatest care, involves a multitude of details, and compels the expenditure of a great deal of the time of Parliament. Under these circumstances, I ask whether, at half-past 12 o'clock, on the 32nd night of this Committee, we are to be asked to sit here through Saturday? Shall we have a Sitting on Sunday? Shall we go on on Monday oversettiug the whole of the arrangements for next week? Is the Report also to be conducted on the same principle of ventilating every imaginable scheme that the ingenuity of hon. Members can devise? Or are we not to address ourselves to the humbler purpose of closing these discussions on this rather wide subject? That is the view to which we incline; but whether or no we cannot introduce such clauses as this at this time. At this period of the Ses- 1713 sion it would be wholly impossible to entertain them.
§ MR. MACFARLANEUnder these circumstances, I am ready to withdraw my clause, hoping to bring it forward at some other time.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMANThe next Amendment, which stands in the name of Mr. Parnell ("Commission may purchase and sub-divide certain land"), was substantially negatived in an Amendment moved by Dr. Lyons. I, therefore, rule it to be out of Order. The next Amendment stands in the name of Mr. Lever ("Facilities to Companies for purchase of waste lands, &c.") I should like him to explain wherein it differs from Clause 25, except in the substitution of the Land Commission for the Board of Works.
§ MR. LEVERsaid, that if the Attorney General for Ireland could assure him that the object he had in view was already secured by the 25th clause, he should not propose the clause which stood upon the Paper.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the purpose in view was entirely met by the 25th clause, providing advances of money for any agricultural improvement.
THE CHAIRMANThe next Amendment on the Paper, which stands in the name of Mr. Dawson ("Poor Law relief "), cannot be put. Its object is to repeal section 10 & 11 Vict. c. 31, and that is already repealed by 25 Vict. c. 72.
§ MR. DAWSONsaid, a portion of the section in question still remained unrepealed, and that related to the giving of out-door relief to people in Ireland. If ever it pressed hardly upon the people of Ireland, it pressed hardly upon them now. It was very hard that a man who was struck down by misfortune should be prevented from getting out-door relief, and should be compelled to go into the poor house and break up his establishment. All he wanted was that any man who only possessed half an acre should be able to get out-door relief in Ireland in times of temporary distress, just as was done in England.
THE CHAIRMANThe clause is certainly outside the scope of this Bill, which is a Bill to amend the Land Law 1714 of Ireland, and not the Poor Law. The next clause on the Paper, which also stands in the hon. Gentleman's name ("Migration"), is out of Order, because it was negatived on the 11th of June. His 3rd clause ("County cess") is in Order.
§ MR. DAWSONthen moved, in page 18, after Clause 26, the insertion of the following Clause:—
§ (County cess.)
§ "On and after the passing of this Act, the county cess shall be paid in equal parts by landlord and tenant, and any power to contract out of said provision is hereby repealed."
§ The hon. Gentleman said, he was glad that this, at least, was not out of Order, and he did not see how it well could be, as it was included in the Land Act of 1870, where the payment of the county cess was allowed to be divided between landlord and tenant; but, by the 12th section, in the case of tenancies of over £50 of annual value, the parties were allowed to contract themselves out of the provision. Mr. Vernon, one of the new Commissioners under the Bill, had stated in the most explicit manner his opinion that in all cases the tenant should be debarred from contracting himself out of the Act, so far as regarded the payment of county cess.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Government could not accept the clause.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he would not propose the clause of which he had given Notice ("Definition of owners in the sense and for the purposes of 5 & 6 Vic., c. 89, &c.")
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLalso declined to trouble the Committee with the clause of which he had given Notice ("Lettings by purchasing tenant.")
THE CHAIRMANThe next two clauses, which stand in the name of Mr. O'Sullivan ("Repair of roads ") and ("Deduction of rent for use of roads"), belong rather to a Highway Bill than to a Bill of this description. The next, which stands in the name of the same hon. Gentleman ("Sale of waste lands,") cannot be put.
§ MR. A. MOOREsaid, he did not propose to move the clauses of which he had given Notice—("Agricultural labourers") and ("Conditions for 1715 erection of labourers' cottages by tenants")—but with regard to the second, he hoped that when the Government clause dealing with the labourers came up upon Report the word "tillage" would be omitted from it.
THE CHAIRMANThe next clause on the Paper, which stands in the name of Mr. Macnaghten ("Restriction on increase of rents after sale or alienation of estate") is unnecessary. The next clause, which stands in the name of the same hon. Gentleman—("Settlement of rents")—disregards altogether Clause 7 of the Bill, and proposes another scheme for the settlement of rents which is inconsistent with that clause. It therefore cannot be put.
MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he should not proceed with the next clause which stood upon the Paper, and which was in his name—("Middlemen interests")—nor would he proceed with the clause following—("Corporate estates")—although perfectly satisfied of the wisdom and practicability of both—except so far as regarded its last section, which he should move in the following form:—
No company or corporation owning an agricultural estate in Ireland shall sell such estate, unless such sale be to the occupying tenants thereof, without first serving on the Land Commission notice of their intention to sell such estate; and thereupon the Land Commission may purchase such estate at such price as may be agreed on between the Land Commission and such company or corporation.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press the Amendment, which it was obvious the Government could not accept.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, the next Amendment he attached some importance to, and it was perfectly germane to the matter. He was content to leave it, without argument, in the hands of the Prime Minister.
§ New Clause—
§ (Land registry.)
§ "The Land Commission shall kept a see of registry books divided into counties and baronies, in which books shall be registered all conveyances, fee farm grants, mortgages, and other deeds affecting any holding in respect of which the Land Commission shall have advanced any money or which shall have been the subject 1716 of sale or purchase by the Land Commission, and all deeds affecting any holding placed on such registry shall have priority according to the time of their entry on such registry, and from and after the date of any instrument dealing with any such holding having been placed on such registry, no document affecting such holding shall gain any priority under the existing law of notice, and any registration of any such document entered on the general registry of deeds, Henrietta Street, Dublin, shall have no force and effect, and any affidavit to be made under the provisions of the thirteenth and fourteenth Victoria, chapter twenty-nine, for the purpose of charging any land with any judgment debt under the said law shall lie registered in the registry to be kept by Land Commission, and not in the existing registry of deeds in Ireland. The Land Commission shall make such rules and regulations as they may deem necessary for the due keeping and maintenance of such registry, and in doing so shall have special regard to the importance of simplifying future dealings with the holdings placed therein,"—(Mr. Charles Russell,)
§ —brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could assure his hon. and learned Friend that this matter had not been overlooked, and that it had been carefully considered before the introduction of the Bill. He was desirous to settle all these matters of registry with regard to the transfer of land; but when they came to be examined, he found it impossible to do so without reference to a scheme of registry for the whole of Ireland. There were many subjects connected with the tenure and transfer of land to which Parliament would be bound to turn attention; but a line had been now reached when such a large subject must be allowed to stand over.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he had a clause to propose, which he would very shortly explain. The present valuation of Ireland, known as Griffith's valuation, was founded on the Ordnance valuation. Some 40 years ago there was an Ordnance Survey of the gross acreage of each town-land in each county in Ireland, and upon that came the Ordnance valuation, and the method of that was explained in the evidence given before the Bessborough Commission by Mr. Vernon, now one of the Land Commis- 1717 sioners. After the Ordnance valuation came the tenement valuation. Taking as an illustration a town-land which he had in his mind's eye, consisting, according to the Ordnance Survey, of 204 acres, this was valued under the Ordnance valuation at somewhere about £200. Then came the tenement valuation, when the valuators divided all the Ordnance valuation into tenements, and the surveyors struck along the roads a dotted line, and they took the area of each tenement from the middle of the road along this dotted line, thus including on either side the whole of the public roads, so as to make the survey tally with the Ordnance Survey of 20 years before. Now if, as in justice they should, the surveyors had excluded the roads, the difference would have been in that town-land he had in his mind an area of four acres. But in the result tenant farmers were paying rent to the landlords, paying county cess to the county, paying rates to the poor rate, and Income Tax to the Imperial Government on these public roads. In the same way, in the case of a farmer who gave evidence before the Commission, he paid upon six acres more than the extent of the holding. He was asked before the Commission if it was a fact that tenants were made to pay upon the roads, and his reply was—"Yes; it was." Then the O'Conor Don, with the instinct of a landlord, asked was it not a fact that the road was of great use to the tenant, and the common-sense reply was that the road was of use to everybody who travelled on it. Then Baron Dowse put the shrewd question—would it not be of as much use even if not measured in with the tenant's land; and the reply was, of course it would. There was an intelligent farmer from the South Riding of Tipperary, and he, taking the computation of the county roads there from official documents as 6,500 acres, calculated that the tenant farmers paid on that area in rates and county cess about £4,000 a-year. Then county Limerick was spoken of, and it was shown that there were about 1,200 acres of public roads, and the average rent being 30s., the tenant farmers paid close on £2,000 a-year on this account, the fee simple of these roads having been bought from the landlords. On his own knowledge, he knew that when roads were made landlords received 30 years' 1718 purchase on Griffith's valuation, and the tenants received two or three years' purchase for disseverance in his holding, but he continued to pay rent. But not only did the landlord receive 30 years' purchase, but he continued to receive the same old rent from the tenant farmer. Mr. Anthony, of Dungarvan, put it very clearly when he pointed out the great hardship it was in the county of Waterford, where roads were measured in with the tenant's holding. There roads were called the Queen's highway; but if a new road were made to-morrow, it would be the landlord who would be recouped at the expense of the tenant. There was one town-land in which there was only one farm containing 259 acres 1 rood 35 perches, and the rent was £199. He went to the Poor Law Office, and he found that the Ordnance Survey gave exactly that area for the town-land. Then he went to the Surveyor's office, and he found that the roads through that farm amounted to 7 acres 1 perch, and the tenant paid to his generous English landlord the same rent for the roads as he did for the remainder of the farm. This was a great hardship, and for this his Amendment proposed a remedy, that if any part of a holding had been or should be taken under authority for the making of roads or railways, then the tenant should not be liable for rent for that portion of the holding thus allocated. It was fair that the Land Commission should have power to deal with such cases, for they were not met by the Act of 1870, nor by the Land Clauses Act. The tenants had been the victims of, he would not say the mistake, but a most unfair blunder perpetrated during the tenement survey, which was merely a division of the Ordnance Survey, and to make the two surveys tally the surveyor included the roads.
§ Moved to insert the following Clause:—
§ "If any part of the holding of any tenant shall have been or shall be taken or acquired under the exercise of any compulsory power conferred by the legislature, either for the construction of Railways, the making of public roads, or any other purpose, then, and in any such case, in the absence of agreement in writing to the contrary, the tenant shall not be liable to rent for that portion of the holding so taken or acquired, and the rent payable is to be apportioned between that portion and the residue of the holding, and such apportionment may be settled by agreement, and if such apportionment be not so settled by agreement, 1719 such apportionment shall be settled and determined by the Court; and after such apportionment the tenant, as to all future accruing rent shall be liable only to so much only as shall have been apportioned in respect of such residue of the holding; and all other conditions and agreements (except as to the amount of rent to be paid) shall remain in force, as regards the residue of the holding, as between the landlord and the tenant in the same manner as if the residue of such holding only had been originally included in the holding."—(Mr. Callan.)
§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, there was a good deal in the hon. Member's argument; but he could not see exactly that it came within the scope of the Bill. It belonged to that class of legislation which dealt with the taking of land for public purposes rather than to a Bill dealing with the relations of landlord and tenant. The Grand Jury Act provided that in all such cases there should be awarded a substantial sum to the owner if he did not like his farm cut up; and in the same way the occupier, if he made good his claim, generally got full value. Again, if he did not think the compensation sufficient, he could traverse that decision, and the ease came again before a jury. It should also be remembered that if the tenant was injured in this way, he would have a right to have the matter considered in fixing his judicial rent. The Committee, however, in any case, might do well to leave it over for legislation next year, when it was hoped the question of County Government in Ireland might be dealt with.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had misapprehended the drift of his observations. To take an instance from his own position. He paid Imperial taxation, he paid Income Tax on about 18 acres of public roads, and he could not see why he should pay Imperial taxation on land not in his own possession, over which he had no control, and from which he derived no benefit whatever. If his clause were agreed to the Land Commission would have power to exclude from his holding whatever amount of land was included in the public roads 1720 adjoining. It was preposterous to say it was a question that should be reserved for County Government legislation. This was a question that did deal with the relations of landlord and occupier. There was a Queen's highway, and the tenant paid rent for it, and if the Court were satisfied that this was an injustice the Court would settle and apportion the rent as they might determine. He certainly felt bound to take a division, and it was only by such explanations as these that a knowledge of the peculiar working of the Land Laws in Ireland was arrived at. The question which he had raised affected, to a large extent, all those who lived along public roads in Ireland. There was an instance of an estate in Louth extending along a road which was 40 feet in width. Tlm large occupiers lived off the public road, and their holdings were reached by private roads; but the small occupiers with farms of about 20 acres along this road of about three miles had each to pay for 20 feet of the roadway.
§ MR. REDMONDsaid, he did not think the clause would be altogether necessary if the Court, in fixing a fair rent, took this point into consideration. If a man were rented for land, a certain portion of which consisted of roadway, this must necessarily be taken into account.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, the question he would like to put was this. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland said that when land was taken from a yearly tenant, say by a Railway, Company, then the yearly tenant would receive compensation. So he did for severance; but his rent was not reduced even though he did receive compensation from the Railway Company. He still continued to pay rent to the landlord, though the latter had received the fee simple in full. But if a tenant became a statutory tenant under the Bill, having practically a lease for 15 years, would he be put on the same footing with, leaseholders under the 27 & 28 Vict.?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the damages he would get from the arbitrator would be calculated on the annual loss he would sustain during his term.
§ Clause negatived.
1721§ MAJOR NOLANproposed an Amendment with the object of making the Bill useful to the labourers by means, not of some fancy scheme, but by something which had stood the test of time. In France, and Russia, and India, and other countries, certain of the common lands were allotted to the poorer people; and his proposal was that Town Commissioners or Poor Law Guardians should be enabled to acquire land for the same purpose. Labourers in Ireland very much wanted allotments on which they could employ their spare labour; and there was no way in which land could be so easily obtained as by allowing it to be purchased by organized public bodies. They would not let the land, and would, therefore, have no temptation to charge high rents. But there must be some guiding power over them, and he proposed that such lands should be used only for the accommodation of labourers under such rules as the Land Commission might direct.
§ New Clause—
§ (Purchase of land for labourers.)
§ "The Land Commission, out of moneys in their hands, may, if satisfied with the security, advance sums to the Guardians of a Poor Law Union or to Town Commissioners, or to the Corporation of any town, for the purpose of purchasing land for the benefit of labourers, provided that it is inserted in the deed or instrument of purchase that such land shall be used solely for the accommodation and benefit of labourers under such rules and conditions as the Land Commissioners may from time to time lay down and direct,"—(Major Nolan,)
§ —brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not for a moment deny the importance of this proposal; but the clause as brought in would be of very little effect, for while it gave the local authorities power to purchase, it gave them no power to compel persons to sell. The question of accommodation for labourers might hereafter be met by enabling local bodies to obtain land for them; but this was a very difficult and very wide question—too difficult and too wide to be added at the very end of the Bill. In settling the relations between landlord and tenant the Government had endeavoured to insure that the labourer's 1722 position should be improved by what might be done by the landlord or tenant. This proposal went quite outside the question of landlord and tenant.
§ MR. REDMONDsaid, he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would go to a division, that there might be an expression of opinion from Irish Members in favour of the principle of the Amendment. The proposal would especially benefit labourers living in towns in Ireland, as they might be enabled to get small allotments in the neighbourhood. Some such clause was absolutely essential if the labourers were to be benefited by the Bill, for the proposal of the Government was altogether permissive, and would not be of very great practical assistance.
§ MR. DAWSONagreed with the Chief Secretary that it was probably too late to enter into this wide question now; but Town Commissioners had great powers under the Artizans' Dwellings Act of greatly increasing the accommodation of labourers, and he should be glad if the Government would facilitate such action. The Corporation of Dublin had largely availed themselves of these powers on their estates; but although local bodies had power to do a great many things, so long as it was permissive they were unperformed. For the benefit of the labourers these powers should be made compulsory.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 151: Majority 112.—(Div. List, No. 329.)
§ MR. CHAPLINdesired, if in Order, to move an Amendment providing for a class which he thought had escaped the notice of the Government—namely, those whose estates were heavily mortgaged, and where the judicial rent was so fixed that there would not be enough left to pay the charges with.
THE CHAIRMANThe Committee has already decided that the Bill will not compel the Commission to purchase land, and the proposal is only one instance where the same principle will apply. The Amendment, therefore, cannot be put.
§ House resumed.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock, and to be printed. [Bill 225.]