§ Clause 1 (Settlement by Land Commission of arrears of rent).
§
MR. SALT moved, in page 2, line 2, after the word "aforesaid," to insert the words—
And the half of such antecedent arrears in respect of which the landlord shall receive no payment under this Act shall remain a charge in favour of the landlord, not bearing interest, on the purchase money (if any) realised by the tenant, or his successors in title, on the first sale of his holding after the passing of this Act, but such charge shall not be raised or raisable unless and until the said holding is sold as aforesaid: Provided always, That in the event of the tenant becoming entitled to compensation to be paid by the landlord, under the provisions
295
of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,'and' The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,'or either of those Acts, the landlord shall be entitled to set off such last-mentioned arrears, not exceeding in the whole a sum equal to three years' rent, in part payment of any such compensation.
The hon. Member said, he hoped to be able to induce the Committee to accept this Amendment, which was unlike the other Amendments which had already been disposed of by the Committee. He thought he should be able to show that there was, in fact, a substantial difference between this Amendment and the other Amendments they had been engaged in discussing. They had already discussed the proposal that the money advanced under the Bill should be by way of loan and not of gift; but that was in no case the proposition contained in the Amendment he was about to submit to the Committee. An important Amendment was proposed yesterday by his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), and subsequently withdrawn; but there was also a great difference between the Amendment of his right hon. Friend and the Amendment of which he was now speaking. The proposal of his rig-lit hon. Friend was that the money advanced by the State should be advanced in a certain souse, and after a certain manner, upon property that might, at the time, exist in the tenant, and might subsequently be realized, That proposal, it would be within the recollection of the Committee, was withdrawn. The proposal had no connection with the money advanced by the State, but applied only to the money that was practically taken from the landlords. Now, the position of the landlord and the position of the State was entirely different. In the first place, the money that was advanced by the State was, in a certain sense, advanced willingly. It was given by the votes of Members of that House representing the constituencies of the country; and, therefore, whatever money, be it large or be it small, that was, under this Bill, bestowed upon the tenant by the State was a willing and an intentional gift. It was given after discussion and by the deliberate vote and intention of the Representatives of the people. But the money that was taken from the landlord was money that was taken without his consent at all; it was taken compulsorily. It might be right, or it might be wrong, but that
296
was not the question he asked the Committee to consider now. All ho wished to point out was that the money was not given willingly. It was money that was taken from the landlord, and it was money which, to use strong language, might be said to be confiscated. Therefore, first of all, there was this great difference, that the money given by the State was given willingly, whereas the money given by the landlord was taken from him. But there was another difference, and a difference which would be extremely familiar to hon. Members who had read the Bill—namely, that the amount of money that was given willingly by the State was limited. It was limited to one year's rent. But the money that was taken from the landlord was not limited in that way. It might be that there was five or six years' rent due to the landlord, and in the apportionment of loss one year's rent only had to be paid by the tenant, and one year's rent only would be paid by the State. Therefore, supposing the arrears to be six years' rent, only one-third—that was two years' rent—of those arrears would be received by the landlord; and, therefore, the loss that was incurred by the landlord, or the money that was taken from him, might possibly be very much larger in proportion than the money that was given by the State. Now, that was another difference, and a most material difference, between the proposition of his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) and the Amendment he was about to submit. But there was a third differ-once between the position of the landlord and the position of the State. To his mind it was a most important difference, and one which it was absolutely necessary that the Committee or the House in any future stage of the Bill should carefully keep in mind—namely, that the money which the State gave was money, no matter from what source provided, which it had to spare—money which it was free to give or free to retain, and money for which there was no other demand. But in regard to the landlord, in addition to the heavy responsibilities which attached to his position, and in addition to the number of years' rent, whatever it might be, they were about to deprive the landlord of, the State attached certain duties, responsibilities, and grave liabilities to
297
the position of the landlord. Out of his rents he was liable to pay rates and taxes and various other public burdens, and he was liable to defray the cost of the repairs of the estate. He was also liable to all the charges of the estate, and to all the charges that were incidental to the life of a landlord. Therefore, they were not only taking away from the landlord money which might come into his pocket, but they were taking away from him money which it was absolutely necessary he should possess in order to fulfil the duties of his position, and his duties to the public and to the State. He (Mr. Salt) confessed that he did not find—and he was rather surprised that he did not find—in the Bill, coming, as it did, from a right hon. Gentleman of great experience and of great eminence, that whore they took off from the landlord the very means by which he made these public payments they did not, in some shape or other, relieve him from his public burdens. This argument was especially adapted to this Bill, because the money which, in the interest of the public, they were about to give away and dispense to the tenants of Ireland was money the security for which depended, in the first instance, in a very large degree upon the payment made by the landlord to the State. Therefore, on the one hand, they were saying to the landlord—"We will take away a large portion of your income;" and, on the other hand, they said to the British people—"We are relying upon that income to justify the sacrifice of the public money we are about to expend." Those were the three points which he put forward in justification of the proposition contained in his Amendment, and which would otherwise appear to be somewhat similar to the Amendments which had already been discussed by the Committee. Having cleared the way so far, he would put before the Committee the proposal he had to make; but before he did so there was one point upon which ho thought he would not be transgressing the Rules of the Committee if ho ventured to urge it, and it was this—that there were some Bills which contained provisions about which the less that was said the better. It might be well to find certain Bills with provisions that were very open and very wide, and therefore very easy to manipulate and
298
carry out; but he was bound to say that in regard to this particular measure it was a measure in which each provision must be most carefully regulated, and that the mind and intention of Parliament should be thoroughly understood and known. He could not at that moment call to mind any largo proposal on which it was more desirable that in the various details of the working of the measure they should have the opinion of Parliament thoroughly known. They were now to deal with a very large sum of money. He would grant that it might be wise to spend it; but they were going to deal with a large sum of money under the most difficult circumstances, and it seemed to him most important for the interest of all concerned that it should be thoroughly understood by the public at large, and all who were interested in the matter, in what manner—how, and why, and to whom—this public gift was to be made. The proposal he had to make was that the proportion allotted to the landlord by the State, out of the State gift, being limited to one year's arrear, there might remain under the clause—and, indeed, there must remain—a considerable sum of money which was not paid to the landlord. Was there any security to be given by the tenant, or could any security be given by the tenant? In many cases there was no security whatever given by the tenant; but in other cases substantial security might be given by the tenant—a security not given in the present, but existing in the present, and possibly to be realized in the future. He did not conceive it was the intention of the House, or even the wish of those men anxious for the Bill in this particular form to become law, that a tenant should be able to take advantage of the very liberal provisions contained in the measure, and after a few years sell his tenant right, which was valuable and secured to him by law, and then go away with a large sum of money in his pocket, knowing that by the will of Parliament he had been able to defeat his creditors. It was that possibility he wished to meet; but he believed it might be met without injury to the tenant, without injury to the principle of this Bill, and with a certain, although modified, amount of justice to the landlords. The proposal he had to make was that in the event of the tenant selling his ten-
299
ant right for a substantialsum, one-half of the antecedent arrears left unpaid should be a charge upon that tenant right. At the same time, it would also be a charge on the sum for compensation which might become due to him from the landlord for improvements, He was bound to say ho could not see how in any way that would interfere with the principles of the Bill, or with the idea which had been so strongly put forward in the Committee that the operation under this Bill should be an operation carried on by way of gift, and not by way of loan. It was simple and fair that if the tenant had taken the advantage of the very liberal provisions of this Bill, and after a time managed to realize the holding and received a substantial benefit, it was only justice that some portion of the sum unpaid by the ton-ant, and on which the landlord had to rely for the performance of his duties, should be recovered from the tenant. Now, he was bound to say that this question was not a very easy question to decide. He acknowledged, and he acknowledged fairly, that there were difficulties to overcome—serious difficulties in regard to arrears, and serious difficulties also with regard to evictions; and he acknowledged that the Bill was an attempt to deal with both of those difficulties. It was not right for him at that moment to say that he did not think this was the best way of dealing with the question, because they were now in Committee, and had accepted the four corners of the Bill; but he desired at that moment, at any rate, to deal honestly with the Bill as it was before them, and to meet all the details of the Bill fairly. Now, the Amendment ho proposed was an Amendment not only in detail, but it was an Amendment that was somewhat important in principle. It involved the very grave principle whether they were to say they would give the large sum of money they were about to dispense broadcast throughout the country, almost to be scrambled for by certain persons, whether they were entitled to it or not; or whether they should say that this was money only intended for those who absolutely required and deserved their help. It was also a question whether they should not put in the Bill some provision that those who were not deserving and did
300
not require help from the State should receive it either not at all, or only until such a time as they were properly able to repay it. There were various persons who wore concerned in this matter. First of all, there was the Irish tenant; and he was perfectly free to acknowledge and accept the position which had been taken by those who had charge of the Bill, that the first person they ought to consider in the matter, seeing that they had passed the second reading of the measure, was the Irish tenant himself. Now, for what purpose were they asked to help the Irish tenant?—because that very materially bore upon the proposal he had to make, and which, he said, was not only one of detail, but in a great measure, also, one of principle. They were, first of all, asked to help the Irish tenant by the Bill, which certainly was a most remarkable Bill, on account of the losses he had sustained from bad seasons. That was the great argument which had been put forward over and over again. Ho was perfectly willing to acknowledge the force of the argument of bad seasons; but he was bound to say that the argument of bad seasons recalled to his mind the fact when he turned back to an important document which was very familiar to hon. Members early in February—namely, the Queen's Speech—that in speaking of Ireland Her Majesty was made to say that Ireland had been favoured with a bountiful harvest, and the abundance of it was referred to with gratitude. He was not going to follow up that argument; but it seemed to him that, in dealing with the question of tenants who were affected by bad harvests, that statement ought to make hon. Members very cautious; and it certainly made him the more cautious in suggesting provisions dealing with the details of the Bill, which might possibly, as he had said just now, spread money broadcast throughout the country without benefit to anybody. There was another reason—and he was bound to say it was a very strong reason, and, to his mind, a much stronger reason than any other—and it was this, that there were a number of poor tenants——
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. Gentleman that he is now engaged in discussing questions which might have been dealt with on the second reading, but not upon the imme- 301 diate Amendment he is placing before the Committee.
§ MR. SALTsaid, he would apologize to the Chairman, and to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, if he was transgressing; and he should not, of course, pursue that line of argument further. He was afraid, however, that ho should be obliged to reserve his observations—and he should do so most unwillingly—until the third reading of the Bill. He apologized to the Committee if he had gone too far, and he only wanted to point out that this was a Bill the details of which were most important; and it was most necessary, and every experience proved it, that in dealing with large sums of money given by a wealthy country to a country that was comparatively poor, every possible safeguard should be taken, lest in giving that money they did more harm than good. Ho believed that infinite harm had been done, over and over again. by indiscriminate gifts. He would, however, defer any further observations until the third reading of the Bill, and then, if necessary, he might be prepared to continue thorn, and to submit, whether on general grounds of policy with regard to the administration of this most important measure, or in regard to small details with which they were now concerned, that it was only fair and reasonable that money which came to a tenant easily, and not in the ordinary course of his business, should not be too lavishly conferred upon him. After the intimation conveyed to him, and no doubt very properly, by the Chairman, ho would not continue his remarks further, but would simply move his Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 2, after the word "aforesaid," to insert the words "And the half of such antecedent arrcars in respect of which the landlord shall receive no payment under this Act shall remain a charge in favour of the landlord, not hearing interest, on the purchase money (if any) realised by the tenant, or his successors in title, on the first sale of his holding after the passing of this Act, but such charge shall not he raised or raisable unless and until the said holding is sold as aforesaid: Provided always, That in the event of the tenant becoming entitled to compensation to be paid by the landlord, under the provisions of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' and 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' or either of those Acts, the landlord shall be entitled to set off such last-mentioned arrears, not exceeding in the whole a sum equal
302
to throe years' rent, in part payment of any such compensation."—(Mr. Salt.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GLADSTONEThe hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seems to be under great apprehension lest the details of the Bill should not be sufficiently carefully considered; but I must say, judging from the length of his speech, that he has taken very great care in preparing and submitting this Amendment. I think, therefore, the hon. Member ought to feel re-assured in his mind, especially when he remembers we are now on the fourth night of the Committee of this Bill, and that we have not yet got through one-half of the 1st clause.
§ MR. GIBSONBut it is a very important clause.
MR. GLADSTONEI am not going to deny that it is an important clause; but to have spent so much time upon it is an exploit almost unrivalled in Parliamentary history. Now, we have very important matters to consider; but I do not think there need be any apprehension in regard to the details of the measure receiving insufficient consideration. If any fault is to be found with the speech of the hon. Member itself, it is not that he has been too concise in the observations which he has made. But what is it that the hon. Gentleman says? Ho says that the State gives willingly, and by a body which is entitled to make the gift; but I do not see why the fact that the State has money, and gives it willingly, should affect the present question. The hon. Member asks why it is the State proposes to give the tenants the enormous boon contemplated by the framers of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman seems to take very little note of the fact that this is not English money which is being given, but that it is almost entirely out of Irish funds, and my reply to his question is this. The State gives this enormous boon for the sake of obtaining the enormous advantages which the Bill proposes, and among those advantages one of the chief is that of liberating the tenant and enabling him to pursue a comparatively free career; and so much do we feel the value of that object that we are indisposed to admit—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) receded from pressing upon us his proposition that we 303 should saddle the tenant right with a charge. That is what the hon. Gentleman asks us to give up now. As to the policy of curtailing or crippling the operation of the Bill, I cannot say the hon. Member is wrong from his point of view, but from our point of view ho is as wrong as he can be; because when he asks us to continue to make some sacrifice on the part of the State, he asks us to withdraw a very large portion of that which is of benefit to the tenant, which we have asked the House to grant, and which the House, by a large majority, has agreed to grant. The hon. Member draws a distinction between the money paid out of the public funds and the rest of the arrears cancelled by the landlord. In the one case, he calls money paid by the State a gift from the Public Exchequer; but in regard to the other he, I must say, very coolly, but no doubt with perfect sincerity, calls it money taken from the landlord. Money taken from the landlord ! Has the hon. Gentleman paid the smallest attention to the history of arrears in Ireland? Is he not really judging in his own mind, which is no doubt perfectly equitable, Irish arrears as if they were English arrears? I grant, if these were English arrears, his Amendment would not be an unreasonable one, supposing it were applicable to the circumstances, because English arrears are, generally speaking, good debts, but of course Irish arrears, on the contrary, extending over a long period, which is the actual case in which the landlord is called upon to make a large nominal sacrifice—Irish arrears extending over a long period are just as generally bad debts, and they are bad debts kept alive, not because there is any rational hope, or even any hope at all, of their being ever recovered, but because they constitute an instrument of power in the hands of the landlord to be used whenever he may feel disposed. That is my description of these arrears, and I appeal to the candour of the hon. Gentleman whether, if that be true, it is really fair to describe that money as money taken from the landlord? He says there may be six years' arrears. But what state of things does that fact deal with? Who will believe in the arrears of six years being a good debt? An English landlord, or a Scotch landlord, never has such a thing as six years' arrears. If such a circumstance did 304 occur, it would be immediately pointed out that the landlord was managing his estate in some fashion hitherto totally unknown. An important declaration was made yesterday by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who said that many of those who had fought this battle for the tenants with him took less interest in the Bill because of the enormous liberality of the terms which it gives to the Irish landlords. Now, I do not doubt myself that great liberality, and a great boon is conferred upon the Irish landlords. I need not say that the occasion has arrived when it has been our duty to endeavour to be very liberal; but I think there was a little mistake in the computation of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Salt) when he said that out of these six years' arrears the landlord would only get one-fourth eventually. He forgot that two years of rent would amount to one-third of the six years, and not one-fourth. Then the hon. Gentleman says we ought to alleviate the burdens of the landlords. I will not enter upon that question further than to say that I do not think that this is the time or the occasion on which the argument for alleviating the public burdens arises. If we believe, and we do believe, that we are offering the landlords extremely beneficial terms at the present moment, it must also be borne in mind that if the arrears are short the landlord will get the great bulk of them. Suppose a case of two years' arrears, out of those two years' arrears the landlord would get back the arrears of 18 months, or three-fourths of the whole. Supposing the arrears extend over six years, he would be required to make a much greater nominal sacrifice, because he would only get two years out of six. But what are these old arrears? They are like the dry bones of the prophet, and the great problem is to make those dry bones live, and the life to be infused into them could not come in by any other source than by the operation of this Bill. The boon which the Government proposes to give is a boon given with great reluctance, and with a full consciousness of the many objections there are to it, but with a view of the many benefits which the measure will provide, and one of these very many benefits is the freedom which will be given to the tenant, and as that freedom would be 305 greatly diminished and restrained by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, the Government cannot accept it.
MR. FITZ-PATRICKsaid, he found it somewhat difficult to follow the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; but he confessed there wore one or two portions of it with which he agreed. In some respects it might be a great boon to the landlord; but he did not think that in his answer to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) the right hon. Gentleman had shown the Committee that he clearly understood the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman used these words, "that the tenant should be allowed by the Bill to pursue his career unfettered." What he gathered from the Amendment of his hon. Friend was this—that he did not attempt in any way to touch the career of the tenant so long as he was a tenant; but when he went away and sold his tenant right to some other person then the hon. Gentleman said the money he received from that sale should be apportioned in a certain manner to the landlord upon terms which should have been made in regard to antecedent arrears. He confessed himself that ho fully endorsed the principle of the Amendment, and he had given Notice of an Amendment of the same character, and he had also supported the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). Personally, he thought that the repayment to the State and the repayment to the landlord at the end of the tenancy should be coincident; because if the State had advanced money to help the tenant in his career, and the landlord had remitted a certain portion of the arrears duo to him for the same good object, he thought both should be treated upon a footing of equality. There was one point in the able speech of his hon. Friend which he desired to touch upon. The landlord practically had allowed his tenants to run into long arrears, probably through a mistaken kindness, or a mistaken moderation. He might say to his tenant—"I do not want to interfere with you, or put you on the road-side and evict you, which I can do, or force you to sell your tenant's interest, which would amount to the same thing, because you have nothing to buy it with or to redeem it; but I will allow you to take advantage of the Bill and liquidate a portion 306 of your arrears." Surely a man who had been so moderate and just in his dealings with his tenants ought to be allowed at another period to receive back a certain portion of the money he had consented to give up. Another recommendation of the Amendment was the immense advantage that would be given by it to the honest tenant. At present the Bill gave the advantage to the dishonest debtor over the honest tenant. What would be the effect of paying off the arrears and leaving the tenant in the possession of his holding? The first person who would come down upon him would be either the shopkeeper or the gombeen man, who would oblige him to sell his interest. They would say—"You have got all this advantage out of the State and out of the landlord, but we have not got anything at all out of you. You must, therefore, sell your interest;" and by the power which now existed through the Land League and other combinations the unfortunate tenant might be forced to sell his tenant right. By this means the local Land Leaguers would have the advantage of the benefit given by the State to the tenant, and the money advanced by the State would, consequently, do the tenant no good whatever. These gombeen men would know that, having a charge upon the holding, if they once forced the tenant to sell, they could obtain any advance they had made; but if the Amendment were adopted, then those persons would know that if they forced the tenant to sell, the first charge that would come out of the proceeds would be the debt to the State and the debt to the landlord. This was a very important point, and he thought that hon. Members on the other side of the House, and many on that side, did not understand the actual effect of the tenant right, which had been given last year to a large number of tenants in the South of Ireland, who never had it before. In Ulster it was well known that the arrears were paid out of the sale of the tenant right, and what was now asked by this Amendment was the adoption of practically the same principle. Now, what would be the effect on the highest value of holdings affected by the Bill if this Amendment were passed? Instead of involving a hardship upon the tenant, the Amendment would be of advantage to him, because it would save 307 him from a certain class of creditors. The only advantage which could be conferred upon a landlord would arise at the end of the tenancy, if a tenant sold his farm and desired to go to America or elsewhere. What would be the value of the sale of a tenancy of £30 if the Amendment were agreed to? The tenant would receive from the State one year's rent of £30, and another year's rent from the landlord, both together amounting to £60. Supposing he remained for 10 years afterwards, and at the end of that period sold his interest in the holding, the average value, according to Judge Longfield, who was the highest authority upon the subject, would be seven years' rent, or £210. Out of that sum, if this Amendment were accepted, ho would be required to pay two years' rent—namely, £30 to the State and £30 to the landlord, or £60 in all. He would consequently have a sum of £150 in his pocket, even supposing that ho sold the tenant right at the ordinary average price; but the tenant would probably be better off, because, as tenancies in the South and West of Ireland were going up enormously in value, he would be likely to get more than the present average, Surely, under such circumstances, it would he only fair to ask him when he left the holding to repay the sum which the landlord had remitted to him; and it was questionable whether they ought not to dovetail upon the Amendment of his hon. Friend the principle that the State also should be repaid what it had advanced in the first instance. Ho (Mr. Fitzpatrick) looked at the matter from a perfectly dispassionate point of view, because the question was one which did not affect himself or his tenants in any way. But ho believed that the tenants of Ireland themselves would prefer an honest transaction of this kind to a dishonest one, especially when it was borne in mind that the Amendment would save them from the danger of other and less scrupulous creditors. He appealed to hon. Members opposite on the ground of justice, both to the landlords and to the tenants, to support the Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT LYMINGTONsaid, the speeches of hon. Members opposite were speeches which ought to have been made upon the second reading. The same arguments were repeated over and over again, and he could assure hon. Mem- 308 bers opposite that those on that (the Liberal) side of the House, who were willing and anxious to see the Bill become law, were fully aware of the dangers and the serious evils that were connected with any measure of the kind. But those evils had been already accepted when the House agreed upon the second reading to support the measure. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Fitz-Patrick) seemed to consider that the Bill was a Bill which would confer no boon upon the landlords. He (Viscount Lymington) entirely agreed with what his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had said—that the Bill would confer a very great boon upon the landlords.
§ VISCOUNT LYMINGTONsaid, he had gathered from the remarks of the hon. Member that ho did not entertain that view. The hon. Member was perfectly willing that the landlord should obtain the advantage of this legislation in order to recover payment of a large amount of arrears, which he never would receive except in consequence of this Bill; but not content with that, he then came forward and asked that the Bill should authorize the landlords to make use of it in order to recover other arrears. [Mr. FITZ-PATRICK: No, no!] If that were not so, ho scarcely knew with what object the hon. Member had made his speech at all. The Amendment said—
And the half of such antecedent arrears in respect of which the landlord shall receive no payment under this Act shall remain a charge in favour of the landlord, not hearing interest, on the purchase money (if any) realized by the tenant, or his successors in title, on the first sale of his holding after the passing of this Act, but such charge shall not be raised or raisable unless and until the said holding is sold as aforesaid,and then the landlord was to claim another half, not going back further than three years, which should be a charge upon the tenant right. They had heard a great deal about exceptional tenant right, and there might be cases in which the tenant right was extremely substantial. But it should be remembered that the Bill dealt, for the most part, with very small and very poor holdings, and he himself believed that there would be very few eases which would be affected in the manner indicated by the advocates of the Amendment before the Committee. It appeared to him that the 309 real objection to the Amendment, and to other Amendments of the same kind coming from hon. Members opposite, was that they endeavoured in reality to restrict and to hamper the efficacy of the Bill. The evils and dangers connected with legislation of this character had been argued and debated on the second reading of the Bill, and even those who supported the Bill could not deny the force of those objections; but it would, indeed, be illogical if, after the House had agreed to sacrifice principles of political economy to political expediency, it agreed to Amendments like the present, which would render that sacrifice inexcusable and futile by introducing into the measure seeds for future irritation between landlord and tenant.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he could not agree with the noble Lord (Viscount Lymington) that the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Salt) would render the Bill useless; on the contrary, he had always been impressed with the necessity of imposing some charge on the tenant right. He knew as much about Irish land as most hon. Members opposite, and he could not agree with them that arrears were allowed to run up for the purpose of placing power in the hands of the landlords. If arrears were bad debts, the Prime Minister was finding fault with his own Land Act, because one reason why that Bill was introduced was that there should be a first charge upon the sale of the tenant right by the landlord for any arrears due to him. If the Bill passed in its present form without some such Amendment as that proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Salt), the security now possessed by the landlord in the shape of the tenant right would be handed over to the tenants. That would be the certain consequence in many cases, and it was for the advantage of the tenant himself that this Amendment should be adopted, in order to protect the tenant from proceedings which might be taken by unscrupulous creditors in order to compel him to sell his interest in his holding so that he might satisfy the claim they had upon him. He believed that the Government would do well to reconsider their position and accept the Amendment.
§ MR. GIVANsaid, the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment before the Committee, in the remarks which he made, had stated that by the Bill as it 310 stood a considerable portion of the landlord's income or property would be taken away. He would not enter into that argument, but he thought that no one who knew the value of arrears in Ireland would for a moment dissent from the proposition that one and a-half or two years of those arrears was a great deal more that the landlords would realize under ordinary circumstances. The hon Gentleman was probably not aware of the fact that in Ireland there existed a system of registration of debts against land, and a person who so registered had a lien upon the land. Suppose a portion of these arrears were to lie over for an indefinite time as a charge against the land, the result would be that the landlord ostensibly as regarded the public would be the possessor of a saleable interest in the farm. He might obtain money on the security of the holding, and when a creditor came to realize his debt the landlord would turn up against him with a prior lien under this Act of Parliament, and the creditor would get nothing. Further, the Amendment would, if it were adopted, give to the landlord a direct interest to allow an accumulation of arrears to take place in order that he might have an opportunity of selling up the tenant and realizing an old debt. He hoped the Committee would not approve the Amendment.
§ MR. HICKSremarked, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in rising to answer the very able speech of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), had thought it right to take him to task for the length of time he had occupied in moving this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to show his own sense of the value of time by occupying almost as long a period in lecturing the hon. Member as that hon. Gentleman had used in addressing the Committee. If he understood the hon. Member opposite correctly, he said that the tendency of the Amendment was to dribble away the interests of the tenant; but he (Mr. Hicks) maintained that it was more calculated to maintain those interests, because, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Fitz-Patrick) it would protect the tenant from other creditors than the landlord. If, however, the Bill remained in its present form, whilst the landlord was 311 deprived of the rights he was justly entitled to, the moment an award was made by the Court the common creditors could come in, and the very object of the measure would be defeated. They were told that the object of the Bill was to maintain the present tenants in their holdings. Now, the Amendment did not in any way interfere with the interests of the tenants in that respect; on the contrary, it preserved them for the reason pointed out by the hon. Member for Portarlington, to which he had just alluded—namely, that it would prevent the other creditors coming in and doing that which the Government professed on the very face of the Act to desire to avoid. If Her Majesty's Government did not see their way to accept this Amendment, which, in his opinion, was so agreeable to common justice, he would ask what stops they themselves would take to protect the tenants from the consequences which would inevitably ensue upon the award of the Court being made. Were they prepared to bring in a clause to prevent all the other creditors taking advantage of their opportunity to sell up the tenant? If Her Majesty's Government were prepared to bring in such a clause, he (Mr. Hicks) had no doubt that the Committee would be prepared to receive it with proper consideration; but in the absence of such intention on the part of the Government ho maintained the Amendment before Committee, so far as the interest of the tenant was concerned, to be the best that could be proposed.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Committee had refused to accept the Amendment placed by himself on the Paper pledging the tenant right for the payment of advances to the State. He trusted, therefore, they were unwilling to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for (Stafford, which pledged it in favour of the landlord. He did not approve the words of the hon. Member, who described the Amendment as tending to dribble away the interest of the tenant; and, therefore, ho would look at the question, not from the point of view of the tenant, but from that of the State. It was the interest of the State alone that would reconcile the taxpayers to paying the arrears to the landlords. The English taxpayer had been asked to put his hand into his pocket and pay a year's rent to the landlord, on the condition 312 that ho would forego the rest of the arrears, with the view of maintaining the tenants in possession of their holdings. It was only natural that the taxpayers should, under these circumstances, desire to have the full, value of their money—that was to say, that the full advantage of what they were doing should be secured, and that the arrangement, so far as the State was concerned, should be made as clear as possible. He was strongly in favour of some reservation of the tenant right being made in favour of the State, and he might probably move an Amendment in that direction on Report. For that reason he trusted the Committee would not agree to an Amendment which would have the effect of pledging the tenant right to someone else.
§ MR. GIBSONremarked, that this Amendment was moved for the purpose of dealing with one of the three great difficulties of the Bill. The Prime Minister, in his reply to the hon. Member who moved it, had pointed out that this clause had been under the consideration of the Committee for three days; but the Committee must remember that the clause was the vital part of the Bill, and that it was, in fact, the Bill itself. Now, the Amendment before the Committee dealt with a third division of the whole of the arrears. The first portion of the arrears had to be paid by the tenant, as to which there had been necessarily many considerations put forward in the numerous Amendments having reference to that part of the subject; then there was the portion to be paid by the State, in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) felt an especial interest; and, lastly, there was the portion not to be paid by anyone, and which was to be extinguished by the Act. It was with the last division of the arrears that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stafford proposed to deal, and ho (Mr. Gibson) claimed for it a fair consideration at the hands of the Committee. He was not impressed at all by the argument just addressed to the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, because he saw no analogy between the position of the State and the position of the landlord with reference to the tenant right. The State in this matter was represented by the Government of the day, and the proposal was voluntary, so far as the State 313 was concerned, to pay the debt of the tenant, subject to the conditions contained in the Bill; the State having, of course, the right to do what it pleased with its own money. But the position of the landlord with reference to the arrears was quite different. The proceeding was in invito; and they were, therefore, entitled to regard the matter from the point of view of expediency and justice. The Prime Minister proposed to sweep away that portion of the arrears which, the Amendment dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman said to the landlord—"Whether you like it or not, we wipe away these arrears; you will not recover one penny of them." And that being so, he would ask, what was the reason for it from the point of view of the Government? They said, for high public reasons, it was desirable to free the land in Ireland from arrears. That was their proposition. Well, a man might have assented to that, and from their own point of view; but he could not assent to their proceeding further in that direction than was absolutely necessary. The Prime Minister said the tenant should be relieved from immediate pressure, and that he should be free to work his farm, and live without fear of eviction impending over him. They knew that in the Province of Ulster there were arrears on many great properties for three, four, and five years' rent, which had been allowed to accrue without any feeling of hardship on the part of the landlord, because it was known that the rent was not very large as contrasted with the value of the tenant right; and it was also known that, according to the custom of Ulster, whenever a farm was sold, the first charge upon the tenant right was the amount due to the landlord. That custom worked very well; there was no feeling of hardship about it, and under it, with kindly forbearance on both sides, many tenants had been kept in possession of their farms, who would not otherwise have been able to hold their ground. He would deal now with the Amendment before the Committee, which took up that portion of the arrears proposed to be extinguished, and said, not that they should be preserved in the same state as at present, but that they should stand over, only to be realized in the event of sale by the tenant. In other words, they might never be realized at all; but the 314 Amendment, if adopted, would insure that if a tenant in arrears found it necessary to go away and sell his farm, he should not be allowed to put into his pocket the price of the holding without paying anything to his landlord in respect of arrears, which were solely extinguished with a view to keeping him in possession of his farm. The Amendment also insured that if any other creditors of the tenant came in and sold up the tenant the practical purpose of the Bill should not be defeated. The Bill was not intended to tie up the landlord and leave the other creditors free; its object was, if possible, to leave the tenant in possession of his holding. But if it remained as it was, it would allow the creditors of the tenant other than the landlord to come in and realize the tenant's interest, which had been made valuable by this Bill. It was neither fair nor reasonable that the other creditors should be given this preference, which, by the Amendment before the Committee, was intended to be secured to the landlord. The Amendment would also carry with it the advantage of removing the feeling of irritation and sense of injustice which unquestionably existed in the minds of landlords, owing to the manner in which their property was being dealt with against their wish.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR, IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he should regard the existence of arrears rather as evidence of the inability of the tenant to pay than of forbearance on the part of the landlord. Under the present law, having regard to the Statute of Limitations, the landlord could recover six years' arrears of rent as against the land—that was to say, if the tenants could pay, because, as they would say in Ireland—"Although Samson was strong and Solomon was wise, they could not pay without money." Now, the Amendment proposed that five years' arrears should be insured to him, because, in addition to the three years' which the Amendment dealt with, the landlord would get one year's rent from the tenant and another year's rent from the State. The ground on which it appeared to him that this Amendment ought not to be accepted was that the question raised by it had been decided on the second reading. He could not admit the accuracy of the statement of his right hon. and learned Friend oppo- 315 site, that the arrears ranged in estates in Ulster from one to six years; on the contrary, ho believed it to be a fact that on no property in Ulster were there six years' rent due, and that only in a few-cases was there one year's rent in arrear. If the Amendment were accepted, there would be no way of keeping the account of these charges; so that, in point of fact, the arrears would remain as a dormant charge on the land, because in no case would any interest be paid. Moreover, if the debts were to become a first charge, what was to become of such matters as drainage and improvement of the land? For the reasons indicated he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted by the Committee.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to be greatly impressed with the fact that by the operation of the Bill the landlords of Ireland would get a much larger sum into their pockets than they could expect to receive if the arrears were not dealt with in the manner proposed. Ho was not prepared to dispute that point. But, notwithstanding the circumstance that the landlord might be paid a larger sum than he would otherwise receive, everyone must feel that a great injustice was done by the State when it stepped in and compelled a whole class of creditors to accept a composition with their debtors on terms determined by one general rule, and not with reference to the equities of each particular case. It might be true that the creditors, as a whole, would gain; but that only meant that some would get more than they ought from the State, while others got less than they ought from their tenants. It could not be denied that this was a great evil in connection with this Bill; neither could it be denied that this evil would be largely obviated by the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stafford. Another object to be gained by this was that a wide and salutary distinction would be drawn between the tenants who had paid their rents and those whom the Government were going to relieve by this Act. The third advantage to be gained by the operation of the Amendment was that the tenant would be protected from his other creditors—the shopkeeper and the gombeen man. He would not enlarge upon that argument, which had been extremely well urged 316 by his hon. Friend (Mr. Fitz-Patrick), who was not now in his place; but he would remark that he had heard no answer to it from the other side of the House. On what ground, then, was the Amendment resisted? The Prime Minister had said with great force that the object was to start the tenant on a fresh career, and that if that object were not attained the Irish Church Surplus and the possible grant from the Consolidated Fund would be sacrificed in vain. He (Mr. Balfour) granted that if the tenant was not to get the advantage of the Bill when passed, free from the incubus of arrears, the Bill would fail in its operation, and that they would have sacrificed principle to no purpose whatever. But under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stafford the tenant would not feel the burden of debt, because it could not be claimed from him so long as he remained in possession of the holding. Directly, however, ho ceased to be tenant and cultivate the soil—directly he elected to migrate or emigrate, then undoubtedly he would have to pay some of the debt justly duo to the landlord. He did not think it could be denied, if their object was to make the Irish tenantry cultivate their holdings without the feeling that they were overpowered by a load of debt which they could not pay, that that object was in no way militated against by the Amendment of his hon. Friend; because so long as the individual farmer remained a tenant he could not be called upon to pay. Therefore, ho said, the argument urged, against the Amendment from that point of view had no weight.
§ MR. VILLIERS-STUARTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in his reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Stafford in support of this Amendment, had stated that the arrears which the Amendment proposed to deal with were all bad debts. He was anxious to explain that that was not a correct view of the matter, because it i was the general practice in Ireland, when the goodwill of a tenancy was sold, for a certain portion of the arrears to be deducted from the money paid by the incoming tenant. In that way a considerable portion of the arrears would be recovered as one farm after another changed hands. He was prepared to admit that the arrears were old debts, and that it would be unreasonable to 317 expect to recover them in their entirety; but he would point out that a considerable portion of the arrears in question, previous to the year 1877, were at that time only debts of one year's standing. On all estates there were certain arrears in 1877 which, as he had pointed out on a previous occasion in the course of the discussions on this Bill, had been variously dealt with by different classes of landlords. The exacting landlords, for instance, got these arrears out of their tenants oven in the years of distress—1877 and 1878—and that, too, at the point of the bayonet. He knew of a case in which dragoons and extra police were brought down at great expense to the county to extort these arrears. But there was another class of landlords, who wished to deal generously and indulgently with their tenants. These landlords followed a different course They did not exact the arrears, which, be it remembered, were not their old arrears; and he said it would be a very hard case that the leniency of these landlords should now be turned against themselves, and the arrears of 1877 confiscated without their receiving any compensation whatever. He could understand that the Government should think it a very desirable thing to start the tenantry of Ireland with a perfectly free course before them; but ho thought it perfectly right and just that in the comparatively limited number of cases in which the landlords had dealt with their tenants in the indulgent manner indicated, and who, moreover, had listened to the appeal of the Government to assist their operations, a reasonable amount of compensation should be given. In his opinion, one of two courses should be followed—either the arrears of 1877 ought to be secured to the landlord by a lien on the tenant right, only to be exercised on the sale of the good-will; or the limited number of landlords ho referred to should receive reasonable compensation. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stafford, he would conclude his remarks by saying that, although considerable exception had been taken to it in its present form, it contained, in his opinion, a principle well worthy of consideration.
§ MR. MAGNIACremarked, that hon. Members who supported this Amendment on the other side of the House put 318 forward what seemed to be "A New Way to Pay Old Debts." He understood the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour) to say that there ought to be an arrangement between the State and the landlord by which the debts of the latter should be secured, while the tenant would be thereby protected from his other creditors. He could not have conceived that such a proposal should be made in that House.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI beg pardon; I spoke of protecting the tenant from being sold up.
§ MR. MAGNIACunderstood the hon. Gentleman that the object of the Amendment was to save the tenant from the gombeen man and other creditors—the proposal being to make a collusive arrangement in order to defeat these persons. He knew nothing of the class of people referred to, but he presumed they stood in the same light as other creditors. It seemed to him that if the gombeen man was an individual who lent at a high rate of interest, ho was no more to blame than the man who borrowed from him. However that might be, he maintained that the arrangement proposed was contrary to the morality of all civilized countries. But there was also an argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson), who, in the last Administration, held the high position of Law Officer to the Irish Government, upon which ho desired to make one or two observations. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the object of the Amendment was not that the arrears should be preserved in their integrity as at present, but that they should only stand over. Now, the one idea which pervaded the whole of the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to this matter was that of a state of chronic insolvency on the part of the tenant, and that was the very thing which the Government and their supporters wanted to get rid of. They wanted to place the tenant before the world clear of the incumbrance of arrears. A young man, perhaps, coming of age would be told that this charge was a mere matter of form; but after a certain time, when he wanted to deal with the tenant right, he would find that this matter of form had assumed proportions which it would be very difficult to get rid of. Another argument—a most astonishing one—had also been put for- 319 ward by hon. Gentlemen opposite—namely, that the Irish landlords and their property were being dealt with against their desire. He should be glad to know whether anyone representing Irish landlords in that House had got up and said one word in opposition to the general principle of the Bill, which was that £2,000,000 should be paid to them which otherwise they would not have obtained. He did not remember, and he should be surprised to find, that this had been opposed by hon. Members opposite. He trusted the Committee would not agree to impose the charge upon the tenant's interest which was contemplated by the Amendment, because it would undoubtedly defeat the object of the Government with regard to the tenant by sending him a pauper into the world.
§ MR. MULHOLLANDpointed out that the argument of hon. Members who had supported the Amendment on that side of the House was not that it would stand in the way of debts due to creditors other than the landlord, but that it would stand in the way of eviction for the debts of those creditors. Hon. Members seemed to forget that at present the landlord had the first charge on the tenant right already. But that was the case, and therefore the Amendment made no change whatever in this respect. It was the Bill that would make a change. The Attorney General for Ireland, on the point, was asked what equivalent would be got for this expenditure of public money if the tenants were not relieved from the debts of the other creditors, and he said there would be this one equivalent, that the landlord could not evict for these arrears. Now, the Amendment which was proposed would simply make half of the antecedent arrears a dormant charge upon the tenant right.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 169: Majority 76.—(Div. List, No. 254.)
§ MR. M'COANsaid, he had an Amendment to move to this clause authorizing the advance by way of loan to tenants of holdings valued at more than £30 a-year.
§ MR. WARTONrose to Order. He thought the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Youghal 320 (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) should be taken first. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member who had just spoken proposed the introduction of a Subsection No. 2; but the Committee would perceive by the Notice Paper that they had not yet finished Sub-section No. 1.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport was quite correct in the view he had taken; and he, therefore, called on the hon. Member for Youghal.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, the object he had in view was the same as that of which Notice had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lynn Regis (Mr. Bourke). He had placed in the hands of the Chairman an Amendment, slightly differing in terms from, but substantially the same as, the one standing on the Notice Paper in his name, which he would ask the Committee to accept. His desire was to get rid of some technical details, and to shorten the process of the inquiry which had to be made before adjudication could take place under the Act. The whole object of the Amendment was to save the machinery of the Act from friction. If every case, simple or complex, were to be brought into Court in the same form and subjected to tests of the same description, hon. Members would perceive at once that the very multiplicity of the cases to be dealt with would be a great obstacle to the working of the Act; and, therefore, he wished that some advantages should be held out to both parties interested to come to terms as speedily as possible. Accordingly, he had suggested conditions which they should comply with which would entitle them to a speedy settlement, subject, of course, to the discretion of the Court, which he carefully preserved, and those conditions he had embodied in the Amendment he was about to move, and which he trusted would, for the reasons stated, commend itself to the Committee. In every case to which the Act would apply, the landlord must give up some portion of the arrears, and the amount he would receive from the Land Commission could not, in any single case, be more than £30. Now. in order that these cases might pass quickly through the Court, the conditions he proposed were that the landlord and tenant jointly, together with the land agent, if there were one 321 should make an affidavit—first, that the case came within the meaning of the Land Act of 1881; and, secondly, that the conditions (a), (b), and (c) had been fulfilled and continued to exist, and that, upon this being filed, the Irish Land Commission should within 14 days issue an order for the settlement of the case. Now, this plan would have the effect of settling in an office an immense amount of the work which would otherwise come, judicially and in Court, before the Commissioners. He ventured to say that nine-tenths of the cases that would come before the Commissioners would not be of a judicial, but of an official character, and should be dealt with in the manner suggested, which would make it a matter of routine that an order should issue 14 days after the filing of the joint affidavit. And, further, he believed that the adoption of the plan embodied in his Amendment would do more than any other which could be added to the Bill to commend it to the parties interested, because he was satisfied that people in Ireland were sick of all this going to law about everything connected with their interests in land, and that they wanted something they could all agree upon. There could be no better evidence of the fulfilment of the conditions prescribed by the Act than that of the landlord, who would swear that he had foregone a considerable amount of rent, or that of the tenant, who would be very jealous of the landlord and anxious that he should not get more than he was entitled to; or, again, that of the land agent, who would have personal knowledge of the relations of both parties. Now, he asked that when an affidavit containing this evidence, the best that could possibly be obtained, should be put in, in the form prescribed, it should be accepted by the Commission as primâ facie sufficient. By this means the Act would become, to a large extent, self-acting in its most important clause, and it would be regarded as a real boon by the people of Ireland. On the other hand, if the Bill were passed unamended in this respect; if people had to look forward for months, or perhaps years, for a settlement of their arrears under this clause, in the same manner as they had now to wait before a judicial rent was fixed, he believed that series of delays would much tend to discourage them in appreciating an 322 Act which he admitted had been introduced with the most benevolent intentions. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) had said that no one representing the Irish landlords had said anything against the principle of getting the amount to be paid him for arrears; but he believed he was mistaken in thinking that more than a small proportion of the Irish landlords wished for the Bill. He ventured to say, however, if the Bill were made to work easily, they would hereafter be glad that it had been passed; and in furtherance of that he trusted his proposal would be accepted, for there was, in his opinion, no Amendment on the Paper, save and except that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lynn Regis, which could equally commend itself to the common sense of the Committee.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 2, after the word "aforesaid," to insert the words, "The affidavit of the landlord and tenant conjointly with that of the land agent where there is one made in a form to he settled by the Irish Land Commission that the holding is one to which the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1881 applies, and that the conditions (a) (b) and (c) have been fulfilled and exist, shall be accepted as evidence of the existence of such conditions, and except in cases where the Land Commission, in the exercise of its discretion, shall deem further inquiry necessary. In cases where no further inquiry is deemed necessary the order for the payment of the money for the benefit of the landlord shall he issued within fourteen days from the filing of such affidavit."—(Sir Joseph M'Kenna.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BOURKEsaid, as he was anxious to save the time of the Committee, he should put forward now the arguments applying to the Amendment standing in his name, which, as the hon. Member for Youghal had pointed out, was similar in character and object to that now before the Committee. The practical object which that hon. Member had in view was the same as his own, although it was proposed to be carried out in a somewhat different manner. He trusted this Amendment would be considered by the Government in a candid and fair spirit. He could assure the Committee that he put forward his proposal entirely on his own responsibility, and that he had not asked for the support of any hon. or right hon. Gentlemen sitting on those Benches, be- 323 cause he was quite sure that their financial nerves had been shocked too much already by the principles of this Bill, and because he felt that anything in harmony with those principles might not be in accordance with their views. He wished the Committee to understand that the Amendment in his name was proposed with the view of assisting the working of the Bill, because he thought that if this Bill which he objected to were to become law, the more quickly the operations under it were carried to a conclusion the better it would be for all parties. One of the great objects he had in view was to restore harmony between landlord and tenant upon this very burning question of arrears, because it was well known that owing to that question there was a great deal of bad feeling existing in the various parts of Ireland where this Bill would have most effect. The object, then, was to enact that upon the joint application upon affidavit of the landlord and tenant, the conditions mentioned in the clause should be considered by the Court as proved—namely, that the rent of 1881 had been paid, that the existing arrears were antecedent, and that the inability of the tenant to pay was a fact. He remembered well that on the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) certain words were introduced into that portion of the Bill which related to the tenant's inability to pay, having relation to wilful fraud; but he wished to point out that those words would in no way invalidate his proposal, which would furnish the State with a great amount of additional security. It was hardly necessary to say that the proceedings under this Bill should be closed once for all as soon as possible, because if they were not closed evils which at present they knew not of would certainly arise—that was to say, as additional arrears accrued fresh evils would take place. It had been admitted in the course of these debates that the Bill had had the effect of stopping the payment of rent, and therefore the arrears would go on accumulating and multiplying every day the operation of the Bill was kept in abeyance, with the result, if they were not speedily concluded, that in a few months the position of affairs would be worse than it was at that moment. He believed that if the proceedings before the Court were not concluded without 324 delay the Bill would be regarded as illusory, and would, in effect, be mischievous. Now, it had been said that there might be collusion between the landlord and the tenant. He could not agree that this would be the result of the Amendment, because, after all, the tiling the Government were afraid of was that the landlord would be able to show that he was entitled to a larger payment than he was really entitled to by collusion with the tenant. But there was nothing in the Bill as it stood which would prevent the landlord and tenant, if they were so minded, acting in collusion. There was no penalty which would operate in such an event, because the tenant would go in and prove his case while the landlord stood by, and no questions would be asked. But under the operation of his Amendment, if collusion took place the landlord would render himself liable to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. Now, he did not believe there was a landlord in Ireland who, for the sake of the money he would get under this Act, would run that risk. It did not appear to him necessary to press the case any farther, particularly as he was anxious to save the time of the Committee; but there was one remark that he desired to make having reference to the subject of stopping evictions, about which they had heard in the course of these discussions a great deal. He believed the adoption of the Amendment would have a considerable effect in that direction, because as soon as the tenants could say they had settled under this clause, as it was now proposed to amend it, they would be able to snap their fingers for the time being so far as eviction was concerned. On the other hand, he did not believe the adoption of the Amendment would lead to the slightest collusion; while it must be obvious to the Committee, and particularly to Irish Members, that it would greatly accelerate the working of the Act. For these reasons he appealed to right hon. Gentlemen opposite to give the proposal a full and candid consideration.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)agreed with hon. Members opposite in the object they had announced, that the working of the Bill in its preliminary stages should be as unincumbered as possible. He begged to assure the Committee 325 that Her Majesty's Government were fully alive to the importance of the first steps in the settlement of arrears being taken with expedition. Ho also agreed that, practically, there would be scarcely any risk of collusion in cases where the landlord and tenant made the affidavit required. But, at the same time, it must be remembered that in any arrangement of this sort the statements contained in the affidavit could only be accepted as in the nature of primâ facie evidence. The Government were prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna); but it appeared to him that the subject would be with more propriety introduced in connection with the 7th section of the Bill than in the present clause, because that section was devoted to the rules for carrying the Act into effect. It would have to be considered whether it was desirable actually to introduce into the Bill an Amendment of the same kind as that now before the Committee, or whether it might with advantage be left to be included in the rules to be made by the Commissioners; but whatever was done he had no doubt that the arrangement suggested was the most practical way of dealing with the subject. Another reason why he thought the matter should be considered on the 7th section was that, in order to prevent anything like collusion, it would be desirable that the Crown agent should certify that the case was a fit and proper one. He therefore suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, in order that Her Majesty's Government might consider whether a clause should be introduced into the body of the Bill, and in order that they might propose words which would carry out the intention of the hon. Member for Youghal.
§ MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, as the Government had intimated that they were willing to consider favourably the best means of achieving the object proposed by the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) and the right hon. Member for Lynn Regis (Mr. Bourke), he would add his suggestion to that of the Solicitor General for Ireland that the matter would be more conveniently discussed on Section 7. It was most desirable that the operation of the Bill should be as speedy as possible, 326 so far as the preliminary steps were concerned, because everyone who had taken an interest in the working of the Land Act of last year would admit that one of the great difficulties that stood in its way was the cumbrous machinery by which it was put in motion.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, in response to the appeals made to him, and on the understanding that the Government accepted the principle of his Amendment, and would give effect to it by suitable words on Report, he would ask leave of the Committee to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, it was an unsatisfactory proceeding to postpone the making of rules relating to the working of a measure of this kind. He contended that the House was entitled to have the preliminary steps to be taken dealt with on the face of the Bill; and he regarded it as objectionable that the question should be left in such a way as that either too much or too little should be done thereafter. He pointed out that there would be some difficulty as to the affidavit with regard to the question whether the holding was one to which, in the terms of the clause, the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, applied. That was a matter the ascertaining of which might very well become the subject of a lawsuit, and a subsequent appeal. He suggested that this matter should be left open for the landlord and tenant to settle.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the intention of the Government was that the affidavit should be primâ facie, but not conclusive evidence, that the conditions of the section had been fulfilled.
§ MR. BOURKEunderstood that the Amendment was accepted in principle.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)signified assent.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he wished to make some observations before the Amendment was withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMANI put the Question to the Committee—"Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?" That Question being answered in the affirmative, I said—"Amendment, by leave, withdrawn."
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the Secretary of State for War had been permitted to 327 make some observations, and he presumed he had the right to do the same.
THE CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member desires to make any observations which he has not had an opportunity of putting, the Committee will, perhaps, allow him to do so.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, his remarks would apply to the Question whether the Amendment should be withdrawn or not, and if the Chairman allowed a Minister to make observations——
THE CHAIRMANI cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to dispute my ruling. The Amendment is withdrawn. Perhaps the Committee will allow the hon. Member to make such observations as he wishes.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he must, of course, submit if the Chairman allowed the Secretary of State for War to make observations and denied the right to himself. He, of course, understood the manner in which the Chairman ruled with regard to Irish Members.
§ DR. LYONSasked whether it would not be proper to take the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) when the clause was disposed of?
THE CHAIRMANI do not know whether the Committee are prepared to consider the new sub-section. I am not prepared to say that it is out of Order.
§ MR. M'COANsaid, he had introduced a slight verbal change in the sub-section which he was about to move; and he would, therefore, in order that the Committee might fully apprehend the change, state the Amendment in its altered form. It provided that—
In the case of any holding valued at more than thirty pounds a year, the tenant of -which is in arrears of rent, the Land Commission may, on proof that the conditions (a) and (b)—not (c)—had been fulfilled, advance to such tenant, as a loan, a sum not exceeding one year's rent of his holding.He might say that this Amendment was merely an extension of the previous portions of the clause, just as the clause itself was an extension of the Arrears Clause of the Act of last year; and ho was encouraged to place the Amendment on the Paper by the early developed feeling on the part of the Committee that the extension of relief to Irish tenants of £30 and under which was to be 328 afforded by the Bill might well be made to tenants of holdings above that valuation in the shape of loan. Hon. Members in that part of the House, and many Irish Members opposite, had expressed themselves in favour of the principle of loan; and, therefore, ho believed it would constitute a large improvement if an extension of the principal feature of the Bill were introduced. As he first framed the Amendment, he contemplated loans only to the class of tenants between £30 and £50; but, on consulting two or throe friends who were competent to advise in a matter of the kind, he determined not to introduce the limit of £50, but to leave it to the Committee to fix such limitation as they might think proper. He believed, however, that when he had stated the statistics and facts bearing upon the point, the Committee would see that he was not asking too much from Her Majesty's Government by proposing the Amendment in its present form. Taking his statistics from Thom's Almanac, which, although they were not those of the recently issued Treasury Minute, were sufficiently accurate for his purpose, he found that the number of holdings of £30 to £50 valuation was a little over 85,000, whilst those from £30 to over £100 valuation numbered 111,000. Of the latter, there was every reason to believe that the proportion of those tenants who were in arrear did not exceed one-third of the number; and, therefore, his Amendment would probably not apply to more than 37,000. He did not submit these figures as having an authoritative value, but as the basis of a calculation of the advance from the Public Treasury which would have to be made if his Amendment wore adopted. There was no necessity that he could see, beyond that of drawing the line somewhere, which induced the Government to determine upon the valuation of £30 named in the Bill; but, seeing that this limitation had been adopted in the Bill of last year, and in the present case also, he took no exception to it. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that the valuation of £30 was a very arbitrary limit, and that there was a large number of tenants of between £30 and £40 valuations who were in arrears, and probably many in the same position whose holdings were valued at between £40 and £50, although, of course, the num- 329 ber would decrease as the scale was ascended. But there could be no doubt of there being a large number of tenants, of holdings valued at above £30, who stood in need of the relief to be afforded by the Bill, and it was on behalf of these that he asked the Government to agree to introduce the principle of loan. Seeing that this principle had been so favourably received on both sides of the House, be hoped that no great objection might occur to the Government which would lead them to reject his proposal for the sufficient reason that not a single penny was asked for out of the Consolidated Fund. His proposal was simply that the relief asked for should be afforded by way of loan, and upon security which would insure the repayment of capital, together with reasonable interest, say, at the rate of 1 per cent per annum, in 35 years. He thought so little objection could be urged against this, and so strong were the reasons in favour of affording relief to the large mass of tenants standing at valuations above £30 a-year, that he ventured to hope the principle he advocated would commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House. He was, of course, not pledged to the precise form of the Amendment he was about to move; and it might be that the addition of some words relating to details would render it more workable in the judgment of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, and, if such were proposed, ho would gladly accept them. He would, in short, be glad if the principle of the Amendment were adopted, in the belief that it would be a great and valuable contribution to the relief afforded by the Bill.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, after Sub-section (1), insert—"(2.) In the case of any holding valued at more than thirty pounds a year, the tenant of which is in arrears of rent, on proof that the conditions (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, the Land Commission may advance to such tenant, as a loan, a sum not exceeding one year's rent of his holding. Such loan shall be a debt due to the tenant to the Land Commission, and shall form a first charge on his saleable interest in. the holding, payable at the rate of five pounds per centum per annum for a period of thirty-five years, and shall be recoverable in the manner provided by 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, "for arrears paid under that Act."—(Mr. M'Coan.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
330MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government were prepared to deal with the Amendment in the spirit indicated by the closing words of the hon. Member who had just sat down. With regard to the form in which the principle of the Amendment should be expressed in the Bill, the opinion of the Government was that it would be best to take advantage of the carefully-considered and carefully-drawn clause in the Act of last year, which dealt with the provision for arrears by way of loan. He would state briefly the general grounds on which the Government proposed to proceed. The hon. Member had now altered the form of his proposal, and had introduced the principle of loan, with limitation to all holdings of above the rateable value of £30 a-year. But the information of the Government was that this would be a very doubtful measure, and their opinion inclined to the adoption of the limit which the hon. Member himself had first suggested—namely, that of £50 a-year. But in passing from a system of gift to one of loan, they must do so upon the conditions which belonged to the latter system. They must get rid of the question of the tenant's inability to pay; they must get rid of compulsion, and they must have joint application on the part of the landlord and tenant, as well as joint security. He believed those who had regard for the future welfare of Ireland would approve what he was about to say—namely, that they could not assent to the placing of the State in the relation of creditor directly and immediately on the poorest portion of the occupiers of land in Ireland for a long series of years. The principle of limitation which the Government proposed to introduce into the Arrears Clause of last year, when they revised it and presented it in the shape of a new clause, and which they now undertook to do, would be to eliminate the term of 15 years, and adopt in its stead the term of 35 years for the repayment of the loan as suggested by the hon. Member. He did not invite the Committee to discuss the question on that occasion, because there would be an ample opportunity for doing so when the new clause was brought forward. He merely wished to point out to the Committee the basis on which the Government were prepared to deal with this subject.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, Irish Members could not but feel grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he had met the proposal of the hon. Member for Wicklow. He was, however, afraid that if the loans were to be made upon the joint application of the landlord and tenant the clause would not be so beneficial to the latter as it was intended to be, because ho thought the landlords were not likely to assist the tenants in this matter. There were many cases of farms, even above £50 value, in which the tenants were quite unable to meet their arrears; and if the Government would allow them to obtain a loan upon a joint application of themselves or their landlords of one year's rent, even above £50 in value, they would confer a great boon upon a deserving class of individuals to enable them to get rid of some of their difficulties.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped that the Committee would not enter into a discussion of this particular provision now. No doubt, that was the basis of the clause introduced into the Bill of last year; but then the landlords were called on in a great many cases in the West of Ireland to forfeit a large portion of their income. By this measure Parliament was attempting to provide for the bulk of these cases, and to meet the most urgent cases by a gift. This was only a case of providing a margin which was to be met in the shape of a loan. He would not enter further into the consideration of the question at that moment; but he would only say that the matter would be considered on the basis of the clause in the Land Act.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he did not propose to enter into a discussion of what the right hon. Gentleman had now said the Government were about to propose. They would entirely reserve any opinion on that (the Opposition) side of the House as to this proposal; but he was bound to say that, on a first examination of what the right hon. Gentleman had said, he thought it raised not only an important question for Ireland, but for England also. What was the principle upon which they had hitherto been acting with regard to the Irish tenants? They had been acting upon the principle of granting money to the Irish tenants. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House contended 332 that the grant ought to be by way of loan, whereas Members on the other side contended that it should be by way of gift. But both sides of the House had contended that the reason why aid should ho given to tenants was because they were poor, and because they were unable to pay the arrears; and for that reason—and that reason only—Parliament and the House, whether on one side or the other, had consented to the principle of the Government. They had consented solely on the ground that the tenants were totally unable to pay the arrears due. But now the right hon. Gentleman spoke of introducing loans for tenancies between £30 and £50 in value, without any question as to the inability of the tenants to pay. He ventured to warn the right hon. Gentleman that he was introducing a totally new principle, and one of a far wider range than any contained in the Bill.
MR. GLADSTONEIt is the principle of the Laud Act.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEadmitted that that was so to a certain extent; but it was now proposed to extend that principle to tenants between £30 and £50, and the tenants in England might be disposed to say that seeing the Irish tenant had had a good harvest, while the English tenant had had a series of bad harvests, the English tenant had a far greater claim to it than tenants who would not be called upon to show that they were unable to pay, but simply to show that the rent of their holding was between £30 and £50. In that case, upon a joint agreement between the landlord and the tenant, relief might be asked for. That seemed to him to be raising a very grave question. He would not discuss it further now; but he would reserve his opinion as to the new principle suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. CARPENTER GARNIERsaid, ho regarded the Bill as a mere palliative. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that they were introducing a difficult question, and that the principle just suggested by the Prime Minister of making it a gift up to £30, and making it a loan after £30, would cause confusion, and, if adopted in the case of Ireland, would probably have to be hereafter extended to England.
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the Committee that, although some 333 observations have been made on both sides of the House with reference to the statement of the Prime Minister, it would not be regular to discuss a Motion which is not now before us; and, therefore, any remarks that may be made ought to be confined within a very narrow compass.
§ MR. CARPENTER GARNIERasked when the new clause would be placed before the Committee?
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he had ventured to recommend yesterday that it would be better for the Government to insist on this proposition in regard to proof of inability to pay. He did not think, however, that the tenant right should be taken into account in estimating the tenant's inability. Ho thought that would entail a very much smaller drain upon the Exchequer, and would better meet the cases of hardship which had arisen outside the limit of £30. There were cases of hardship which it was most desirable, for the peace of the country and for the maintenance of order in the country, to meet if possible. Of course, he did not wish to insist on his own notions in the matter, and if the Prime Minister thought it would be better to adopt the principle of the clause of last year, and leave the matter to be settled by a voluntary arrangement, he should not press his own judgment; but he still thought that for the purpose of meeting cases of hardship which had arisen outside the limit of £30, it would be better to insist upon proof of inability to pay on the part of the tenant, and to put compulsion upon the landlord when inability was proved. He did not think it was advisable to permit the Court to take into account the value of the tenant right.
§ MR. M'COANreplied in the affirmative.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that before the Amendment was withdrawn he desired to make one or two observations. He thought the only objection that could be raised against the Bill was that they were doing in one measure what ought to have been done in two separate and distinct Bills. He thought 334 it would be better to incorporate into the measure the clauses of the Act of 1881 in regard to land rather than insert new clauses. He differed from the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that it would be better to insist on proof of inability to pay, if he meant further proof. The landlord himself must join and give security, and it was not likely that the landlord would join and pledge his entire estate as security for the tenants unless there were some exigency that rendered such a step absolutely necessary. He wished to know when the promised proposals of the Government would be placed in the hands of the Committee?
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had already stated that the clause would be on the Paper to-morrow.
§ MR. M'COANsaid, that in view of the very satisfactory statement of the Prime Minister, on the whole, he would not insist on his Amendment, especially as he should have an opportunity of considering the question when the new clause was placed before the Committee. He would now withdraw the Amendment.
§ MR. J. DICKSONsaid, he wished to point out, before the Amendment was withdrawn, that if the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister insisted on the two conditions that there should be a joint application and that the landlords must give security for the repayment of the loan, the clause he was about to introduce would have no effect at all. He could state from his own knowledge that in Ulster there would be no joint application between the landlord and tenant, and in that Province the landlord would not enter into any arrangement to secure the advance of the tenant's arrears by the State. The result would be that, as far as Ulster was concerned, this Arrears Bill would practically be a dead letter; and he reserved to himself the right, when the clause came up, to endeavour to mould the Bill into such a shape as would enable the Ulster tenant to derive some advantage from it. He might point out that, as far as Ulster was concerned, and especially his own county, the entire benefit conferred by the Arrears Clauses of the Land Act of 1881 amounted to £68. This was entirely 335 owing to the fatal blot in the measure that the landlord and tenant were to join in the application. The Prime Minister now got up and accepted, in substance, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan), and he was afraid that the only result which would follow was that no relief whatever would be afforded by this measure to Ulster tenants.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he thought the Prime Minister was quite right in his suggestion that a hard-and-fast line should not be drawn with respect to advances. It would be very unjust that a man should get nothing because he happened to pay £l more rent than the sum fixed. The man who paid £29 would get a very valuable concession, whereas the man who would pay £31 or £32 would get nothing at all. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) said the English farmers would want similar concessions; but the hon. Gentleman forgot the fact that at present the English towns borrowed very largely from the State, and received a considerably larger sum of the public money in advances than the Irish towns. Ho believed they obtained in that manner five or six times as much as the Irish towns under the different Acts of Parliament for granting loans. The English people were immensely larger borrowers from the State than the Irish nation, and a very considerable sum of money was at the present moment owing to the National Exchequer from various localities in England. He thought that that and other discrepancies between the two countries ought to be taken into account. English Members rarely reflected upon this point when they taunted the Irish people with coming to Parliament to borrow money.
§ COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEremarked, that the tenant farmers of his own constituency' in Essex, and in many other parts of England, had more disastrous harvests to contend with than the Irish tenants, and perhaps they might derive some hope from the present measure that they might obtain assistance from the State in order to enable them to meet their losses. Certainly, the only hope they could entertain of any future agricultural prosperity was in a large increase of the capital of the tenantry of the country. Therefore, although he 336 could not say that ho altogether approved of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, he could not help thinking that if it were carried it could not be limited to Ireland, but must be altogether limited to England.
§ COLONEL COLTHURSTwished to say one word in answer to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. E. Stanhope). He believed there was no danger of this being made a precedent for England, and for a very good reason. The proposal was limited to tenancies rated at £50; and he should like to hear from the hon. Gentleman how many tenants in England there were who paid a less rental than £50?
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he could answer the question at once. He knew a very largo number of tenants who came under that description. Ho warned the Committee that if they were going to extend this provision beyond that contained in the Act of 1881, which certainly went far enough, it would become a very serious question with the English tenants whether they were not to ask for as large a boon as that which the Irish tenants apparently were to get. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War whether the contemplated advance was to be limited strictly to one year's rent of the holding? He had not distinctly understood the Prime Minister's statement on that point.
§ MR. CHILDERSreplied in the affirmative.
§ MR. P. MARTINsaid, he had no desire to discuss the clause of the Prime Minister; but he should like to say, in reference to the observations which had been made by hon. Members opposite, that it was proved before the Richmond Commission and the Bessborough Commission that the pressure of distress and the inability to discharge arrears of rent had been shown to exist, not merely amongst those whoso holdings were under £30, but, unfortunately, to as great an extent amongst those whoso valuation exceeded that amount. As a matter of policy, and looking to the objects sought to be attained by the Bill, the larger holdings ought not to be excluded. The extension of the limit of those to be benefited by the Proposed loans would cause no appreciable loss to the State. The condition of very many of those ten- 337 ants who would be excluded was deserving of quite as much commiseration as that of tenants with holdings of under £30. He would ask the Government whether this limit of £50 might not be raised to £100?
§ MR. P. MARTINsaid, ho was only going to suggest that on turning to the statistics it would be seen that the number of holdings between the figures suggested by the Prime Minister—namely, £30 and £50 in value, were very few indeed, and that if the limit were extended to £100 it would not to any appreciable extent burden the Imperial Exchequer.
§ MR. DONALDSON-HUDSONsaid, he had been very much struck by the remark made by the hon. Member who had just sat down that the tenant who paid over £30 a-year was more deserving of commiseration than the tenant who paid less than that. If there was anything in that argument, it was not that they should be allowed to borrow the money, but that the same provisions of the Bill should be applied to those who paid £30 as were applicable to those who paid less—that was to say, that their arrears should be wiped out in the same high-handed manner as was done in the case of the smaller tenants. It struck him that this was only another proof of how one wrong step involved another. It appeared to them that they would never know where to stop. The hon. Member who had just sat down suggested that the limit should be extended beyond the £50 mentioned by the Prime Minister up to £100. He (Mr. Donaldson-Hudson) did not see why the poor tenants should be the only persons whose sad condition should [receive so much consideration. There were men who had embarked in trade, and been unsuccessful, who were worthy of quite as much compassion from the House of Commons as the unfortunate farmer who had gone into another trade—namely, raising beef and mutton and corn. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) suggested that it was only fair that the Irish farmers should be allowed to borrow this money, because the towns in Ireland were already enabled to borrow money.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, the hon. Member misunderstood him. What he had stated was that towns in England—for instance, Birmingham—had borrowed large sums of money.
§ MR. DONALDSON-HUDSONsaid, that if the hon. and gallant Member had allowed him to continue his observations he would have found that he had not misrepresented his views. The argument of the hon. and gallant Member was that the towns in Ireland had not borrowed so much money as the towns in England; but he thought it must be evident to the hon. and gallant Member that the towns in England had not borrowed money on the security of anybody else, but that they had borrowed it on their own security. It was a perfectly fair transaction. Either a town or an individual might borrow as much as they liked under an Act of Parliament upon their own security or upon the security of the rates, and they paid for the money they obtained. That was a very different thing- to borrowing upon the security of anybody else to pay it for them. There was no comparison between the two cases, and the argument of the hon. and gallant Member fell entirely to the ground.
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the Committee that the discussion is not being confined to the Question before them.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, that the landlords could borrow upon the same security; and he did not see, therefore, how his argument was so fallacious as the hon. Member opposite contended.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
MR. FRESHFIELD moved, in line 4, after "Commission," to insert, "and on payment of the money with interest from the date of the order." He said, the Bill was intended to offer a discharge to all tenants with holdings not exceeding £30 per annum, who were unable to meet their arrears, on payment of one year's rent, with a second year's rent to be provided out of public funds. It was estimated, as ho understood, that the gross sum to be thus raised and provided out of public funds was from £2,000,000 to £2,500,000. The sum appeared to have been variously estimated by different authorities; but the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister considered that £2,500,000 would be
339
required. Now, the second year's rent was to come out of the Irish Church Surplus Fund primarily; but if there were no surplus to that Fund, then it was to come out of the Consolidated Fund. The Irish Church Surplus Fund had also been variously estimated. Some alleged that there was no surplus at all. Others estimated it at £1,500,000. The Secretary of State for War, who appeared to have paid great attention to the subject, was convinced that there would be a surplus quite sufficient to meet claims to the extent of £2,000,000. The clause provided for three preliminary conditions to be proved to the satisfaction of the Irish Land Commission before an advance was made. These conditions were—first, that the rent payable in respect of the last year of the tenancy had been satisfied; secondly, that antecedent arrears of rent were due to the landlord; and, thirdly, that the tenant was unable to discharge these antecedent arrears. Then the clause went on to say that in the event of the Land Commission being satisfied in regard to these preliminary conditions, they
May make an order for payment to or for the benefit of 'the landlord of a sum equal to one-half of such antecedent arrears not exceeding one year's rent.
He presumed that the word "may" really represented "must;" but he should like to have the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General upon that point. The clause went on to say that—
On such order for payment to or for the benefit of the landlord being made by the Land Commission, all such antecedent arrears of rent shall be released and extinguished.
He (Mr. Freshfield) contended that it was unreasonable for a man to have to surrender his claim for rent, not for money, but for an order which might not be payable for a long time. He ought to say that by Clause 9 any liabilities incurred by the Land Commission on account of payments to landlords in respect of arrears of rent under this Act would be primarily a charge on the Irish Church Temporalities Fund, and, subject thereto, on the Consolidated Fund in such manner as might be provided by Parliament. The first thing, therefore, to be ascertained was whether there was any surplus on the Church Fund—this had to be ascer-
340
tained in some manner or other. The securities of the Fund did not consist of money, but of interests in land in Ireland; and who was able to say whether those securities could be sold at all, and, if so, when? Under any circumstances there must be considerable delay. Then there was a claim on the Consolidated Fund; but that could not be made until it was shown that the surplus of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund was insufficient to meet the applications made under the Bill. These transactions would necessarily occupy a great deal of time, and it must be remembered that the discharge to the tenant would be compulsory as far as the landlord was concerned. The landlord had a right to say to the tenant, immediately on the issuing of the order—"Give me the money, and you shall take the discharge." But, according to the Bill, the discharge was to take place on the issue of the order. All he (Mr. Freshfield) asked was that, in the carrying out of the arrangement, the discharge should not take place earlier than the payment. The claim for interest on the Church Fund would be a very small one; but as there was to be delay, interest ought to be allowed to run. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had favoured the House with a Minute which he had addressed to the Treasury, and in that Minute the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Church Fund could be made to produce a surplus. Of surplus, at the present moment, however, there was none. The Fund was charged with debts amounting to between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000, and that money could not be repaid under the terms of the arrangement as it existed if a further burden were imposed. Some change would have to be made. There must be a delay and a prolongation of the term within which the money was to be paid. There were two parties to the bargain. The Treasury might be willing to postpone the payments; but the National Debt Commissioners, who held the existing charges, might object to extend the term for the payment of their debts. No doubt, the voice of the Prime Minister was all-powerful in most cases, and possibly it might be all-powerful with the National Debt Commissioners; but they must remember that the right hon. Gentleman might not always be Chan-
341
cellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman might, at some time or other, find the almost superhuman labours involved in the discharge of the important functions of the two important Offices he held too great for him, and he might resign. It might be a misfortune to the country, or it might not, if such a thing took place; but, whether or not, if it did, the result might be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer who followed him might take a different view of the matter, and say he did not consider it for the interest of the public that his claims should be postponed, and so the proposed arrangements might break down. If so, the charge would fall on the Consolidated Fund, which could not be touched without an Act of Parliament. There must be delay in passing such an Act, and the result would be that the operation of this Bill would give the landlord an order which did not involve present payment. The money held over in this way ought to carry interest; and, therefore, he proposed the Amendment on the Paper.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 4, after the word "commission," to insert the words "and on payment of the money with interest from the date of the order."—(Mr. Freshfield.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that anything that fell from the hon. Member, particularly on financial matters, was worthy of the greatest respect; but he (Mr. Childers) could not help thinking that on this occasion the hon. Member had conjured up a difficulty which could not exist, and which, if it did exist, would mean the total breakdown of all these arrangements. The very suggestion that interest must be paid involved the idea of a postponement in the payment that would be inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. No Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow any delay to take place in this matter. The order, when it was issued by the Commission, would be obeyed, and the money would be forthcoming at once. Whether or not the Irish Church Fund was sufficient to provide £2,000,000, there was no question whatever that under a Minute of the Treasury that amount could be at once raised. The fact of the Consolidated Fund being used as security 342 placed it beyond all question that, immediately after this Act came into operation, the necessary amount, from time to time, under the arrangement that the Treasury Minute would express, would be forthcoming. The Treasury Minute would express most clearly the alterations of the former loans, and the operations that would be effected by the fresh loan would enable as much to be put to the credit of the Land Commission as might be necessary. He could assure the hon. Member that he quite sympathized with his object, that there should be no question whatever as to present payment. The orders would be upon the Funds that would be forthcoming in consequence of the issue of the Treasury Minute. The Amendment might be a most dangerous thing, as it would imply the possibility of delay in the payment of these orders, whereas arrangements had been made whereby the orders were to be paid immediately they were issued. The late Secretary to the Treasury, on the opposite side of the House, would know very well that anything like delay would be most dangerous. The payments must be made when the orders were drawn.
§ MR. PLUNKETsaid, he could not say that he was much surprised at his hon. Friend having moved this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman had very clearly expressed his views on the subject, and the reasons why he had put down his Amendment. When the Treasury Minute was issued there would be a considerable amount of mystery as to how the money was to be obtained, and the Amendment appeared to him (Mr. Plunket) to be most harmless. It would do no harm if the money was paid; and if it was not, it would be a wise precaution. At the same time, as the Government could not see their way to accept it, and after the distinct assurance of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that the payments would be made at once, he thought the hon. Member (Mr. Freshfield) might allow him to suggest that it would be hardly worth while to take a division on this subject.
§ MR. CHILDERSIt would do harm, as it would imply a doubt as to the present payment of the orders.
§ MR. FRESHFIELD, in reply, observed, that he could not consider the statements of the right hon. Gentleman as satisfactory answers to his arguments; but as the right hon. Gentleman had given his assurance that arrangements had been made for payment of the orders as soon as issued, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division, but would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he had an Amendment to propose which was only of a verbal character. A clause of the Act of last year contained words similar to those he was proposing, and they were much clearer than those contained in the present Bill. The point was this—that under the present measure, as it stood, if the words he proposed to leave out Were retained, the Bill would simply refer to arrears for 1880, and not for 1881. It would, of course, follow, if the tenant had paid or satisfied his arrears, that not only all "such antecedent arrears," but all arrears would be cleared off. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND assented.] The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Potter), it appeared, agreed with him, as he nodded his head, and, that being so, it would be unnecessary for him to dwell at any length upon this matter. His Amendment was simply to provide that if a landlord had been satisfied, and all the arrears had been removed, he should be prevented from subsequently coming down upon the tenant and saying—"You must now pay me the arrears, because times which were bad have become good, and I think I am entitled to participate in your improved circumstances. "The Amendment would inflict no hardship upon anybody, and was merely, as he had said, a verbal matter. The point, he confessed, was one that it was exceedingly difficult to explain; and he (Mr. Healy) laboured under the disadvantage of having to describe a great technicality; but he desired to make it clear that the words he proposed to leave out only referred to arrears up to November, 1880. Ho wished to have it clear that all arrears up to 1881 should be cleared. Lower down in the clause he intended to propose another Amendment, but it was simply consequential upon this one. He 344 trusted there would be no difficulty in accepting his proposal.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 4, to leave out the words "such antecedent."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, there could be no doubt as to the justice of the principle of the Amendment; but there was equally no doubt that the proposal was quite unnecessary. The hon. Member was quite right in saying that "such antecedent arrears" meant arrears antecedent to 1831, and the tenant could not get an order from the Court without having paid or satisfied the rent up to that date.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman in his argument, as the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to agree with him in his; but the hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear to see that the satisfaction might only be the landlord's acceptance. The landlord might simply say, "I give you this amount," no document passing between them. The landlord would acquiesce in the statement of the Court, but the Bill gave the tenant no acquittance. What he (Mr. Healy) desired was that the Bill should give the tenant an acquittance up to November, 1881. The affair was one of a merely verbal character, and the Solicitor General for Ireland must see that, without the proposed alteration, as a matter of fact, the landlord might be able to sue the tenant for the rent of 1881.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that they all agreed as to what was intended to be done, and the only objection of the Government was that it would interfere with the ordinary symmetry of the Bill. The rent for 1881 was to be satisfied or paid. He would suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
§ MR. WARTONthought the alteration might be highly dangerous, as it might have the effect of extinguishing three gales—one being in 1883.
§ MR. HEALYwished the Committee to know, then, that the words, as he proposed them, were contained in the Act of last year, and no others. Ho wished 345 to know how it was that they had grown wiser since last year. He was willing to withdraw his Amendment.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he thought they really had grown wiser since last year, and that they had drafted the Bill in better form.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. GIVANsaid, he proposed to move, in page 2, line 5, after "rent," to insert—
And any judgment, decree, or security which the landlord may have obtained therefore, or for any part thereof, since the first day of February last.The Amendment required a little explanation. It was well known in Ireland, and to that House, that one of the causes of irritation and agitation in Ireland had been the readiness with which some landlords had proceeded by writs and other processes of law for the recovery of rents. He did not say that any such proceeding had taken place on large and well-managed estates in Ireland; but proceedings of such a kind had largely taken place on small estates, and notably since there had been a prospect of the introduction of this Bill. The Attorney General for Ireland knew very well that rent had always stood in as high, or in a higher position, than any other debt on the land. It had always stood in the position of a speciality debt, over which, as a general rule, no other debt could take priority. Since there had been a prospect of the introduction of this Bill there had been a practice of proceeding against tenants in a harsh and cruel manner by levying upon them, by the sale of their crops or stock, which was necessary for the due cultivation of the farms for the purpose of realizing arrears of rent due, before this Act in favour of the tenant came into operation. The point had been mentioned before—it had been referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) in a Question he had put to the Government. He (Mr. Givan) had had the matter brought to his attention by tenants in the county he represented. He had received a communication to the effect that a bundle of writs had been served upon the estate of Lord Rossmore, on the 11th of July, for the purpose, some of recovering two and a-half, some three, and some two 346 years' rent, and so on. Not only were the rents due up to the 1st of November, 1881, proceeded for, but writs had been issued actually including May, 1882. And what had been the effect of these proceedings? The landlords who had adopted them had determined to have their pound of flesh, and they had had it; whereas the forbearing landlords, who had treated their tenants with kindness and mercy, would come in quietly acquiescing in the provisions of this Bill, whatever they might be. He did not think the former class should have an advantage over the latter. He did not think the House would be inclined to give the landlords who had acted in a harsh and unfeeling manner in enforcing their claims against the tenantry an advantage over landlords who had not adopted that course, and it was with the object of preventing this that he had put his Amendment on the Paper. He wished to provide that on the tenant paying the rent in November, 1881, and on the payment of the year's rent by the Land Commission, not only should the tenant be released from all arrears, but from all decrees and judgments which had been obtained for antecedent arrears since, say, the 1st of February. He did not fix the 1st of February as a hard-and-fast date, and he had only decided upon that for the reason that it might be taken as the period at which it was first shadowed forth that this Bill was likely to be introduced. If the Committee should think some other date preferable—the 1st of March, for instance-—he should be willing to accept the suggestion; but, at any rate, he hoped the Committee would not allow a perferential security to those landlords who least deserved it.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 5, after the word "rent," to insert the words "and any judgment, decree, or security which the landlord may have obtained therefor, or for any part thereof, since the first day of February last."—(Mr. Givan.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, this was an Amendment which, on the first view, appeared very plausible, and which, on a later examination, might be thought could be accepted with a qualification as to costs, which were plainly not provided for by the hon. Member.
§ MR. GIVANsaid, he did not wish to raise that question; but had desired to leave it to the Committee.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he was justified, therefore, in thinking that it was not an oversight on the part of the hon. Member, and that he (Mr. Givan) had refrained from dealing with the question of costs, in order that an Amendment might be proposed which he could accept. At first he (Mr. Gibson) had thought that this was the only hitch in the Amendment; but it had occurred to him a moment ago—and the objection seemed to come more home to him as ho considered the matter—that the Amendment would be in conflict with the view taken and persisted in with all due consistency by Her Majesty's Government in the Bill throughout. The Bill was intended to be one which should operate only indirectly in ejectments and evictions, and would say to both parties—"You can procure the benefits and advantages of the Bill if you please." In no part did the Bill say that the landlord was to be put in jeopardy, or in any kind of penal position. It said to him?—"You have the power of initiation, and you may submit to the operation of the Bill and get what is held out to you in the shape of a gift." That, all through, was the consistent statement of the Government; but when once they took up the position of dealing with evictions and ejectments, it was obvious they opened up a large question that would require a considerable amount of discussion. He admitted that openly and directly the Amendment did not deal with that question, but indirectly it did. Nowhere did it use the word "eviction" or "ejectment;" but it was, nevertheless, the fact that it would extinguish ejectments and evictions, because they would be all controlled by the words which governed the Amendment, and which would extinguish all decrees. He (Mr. Gibson) did not know whether that was the hon. Member's intention; but, if so, it did not appear on first reading the Amendment. He (Mr. Gibson) had not himself at first put that meaning on it; but, on further consideration. he thought that construction fairly applied; and if they were to have such a proposal before them, it would open up questions the discussion of which would indefinitely prolong the proceedings of the Committee, and, at 348 the same time, it would give contradiction to the statements of the Prime Minister and all the other Ministers who had taken part in these debates. Under all the circumstances of the case, he (Mr. Gibson) did not feel himself at liberty to assent to the Amendment, and ho should, therefore, be bound to oppose it. He should be glad, however, to hoar from the hon. Member his view of the matter—he should be glad to hear the hon. Member explain in detail whether or not he proposed to deal with ejectments and evictions, and whether he intended to deal with the question of costs and matters of that kind. He (Mr. Gibson) looked on the question of costs as a secondary matter; but the matter of dealing with evictions and ejectments was vital.
§ MR. GIVANsaid, the question put to him by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was an extremely fair one, and he was obliged to him for the manner in which he had addressed it to him. He (Mr. Givan) did not think it would be fair to interfere with the landlord in proceeding for ejectment if the tenant failed to avail himself of the operation of the Act. In such a case it would not be fair to prevent the landlord from putting an ejectment decree that he might have obtained into operation. But if the tenant should avail himself of the Act, the effect of the landlord having an ejectment decree against him should not stand in his way. As to the ejectment, the tenant had the right of redemption, and the landlord was in no better position in regard to ejectment for non-payment of rent than this—that he might take the land from the tenant temporarily, and the tenant might, under the provisions of the Bill, effect a redemption. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) would admit that under the provisions of the Act, subject to payment of costs, the tenant should have the right of redemption, if he acted in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Bill. In a case in which the landlord had elected since this Bill had been brought in, or immediately prior to it, instead of obtaining an ejectment for non-payment of rent, to obtain a judgment, or civil bill decree, or a promissory note, or bond, or mortgage on the tenant's interest in the farm, by such a proceeding he would obtain an unfair advan- 349 tage over the tenant, and would put himself in a position better than he would occupy if such a proceeding were not taken. He (Mr. Givan) thought the landlord who had adopted such a sharp practice as that should be put on a level with the landlord who had mercifully permitted his tenant to remain in a position that would enable him to avail himself of the Act.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it would be well for the Committee to see how they stood in this matter, and to know what the Government proposed to do, before they proceeded any further. The provision of the Bill was that when the condition was satisfied, which was the payment of the rent of 1881, the antecedent arrears of the landlord should be extinguished. The Amendment proposed that no judgment, decree, or security which the landlord might have obtained since the 1st of February should be put in force. As far as the Amendment dealt with judgments and decrees it would be perfectly reasonable, and for this reason, that the action might have been brought for rent since the 1st of February last, or the ejectment might have been made for rent since that date. If the action were brought for rent and not to obtain an ejectment, then the condition of things would be that the 1881 rent would have been paid and the 1880 rent would have been satisfied, and then what was proposed was that the arrears antecedent should be paid up whether there was a judgment or not. Then, if there were an ejectment, it would be for non-payment of rent since February last, and the condition of the tenant in that state of things would be that, as there were only five months since that date, his period of redemption would be running, and he would be entitled to be reinstated on payment of the arrears and costs. The rent of 1881 being paid, and the rent of 1880 advanced, the arrears would be wiped out and the tenant would be entitled to go back to his holding. What it came to was that there were two words in the Amendment, the words "or security," which he thought his hon. Friend would not consider necessary. If the process were a judgment or a decree, then the amount for which the judgment or the decree had been obtained would, in the 350 way he had described, be satisfied, and the only tiling that would remain outside that would be the costs. All the Bill proposed to do was to satisfy the arrears of rent, and that would leave the costs. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) would propose, in one form or another, on the part of the Government, to bring up on Report an Amendment to the effect of the one before the Committee, excluding the words "or security," and leaving the costs outstanding by the adoption of some such words as these, "on payment of the costs," or "except as to costs." If the costs were not paid, the judgment or decree should be security for the costs, though not for the debt. He thought this would meet the views of the hon. Member.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he only wished to have the matter fully considered. It was a very technical question, and he was quite satisfied that it would be better to leave it for Report, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland suggested. The words the Government proposed could be, if the matter were left for Report, criticized and examined before they came on for discussion, and so also could those of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan). A difficulty had suggested itself to his (Mr. Gibson's) mind as to the words in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan, "since the 1st day of February last."
§ MR. GIVANsaid, he had only fixed the 1st of February as the time when he thought that the landlord had proceeded in consequence of this Bill being in course of preparation.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he quite appreciated the point referred to, and he thought that probably his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan might alter the date from the 1st of February to the 1st of March, so as to include the spring gale.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that since this Bill had been introduced or foreshadowed the landlords in a great many parts of Ireland had insisted upon their tenants giving promissory notes. If this Amendment were omitted, the object of the Bill would be defeated by the landlords insisting on payment. He hoped the hon. Member would persevere with his Amendment.
§ MR. PLUNKETwished to know for what reason the hon. Member wished to interrupt any legal process a landlord had taken in pressing the tenant for payment of his debt since the 1st of February—why had ho fixed upon that precise date? In February the only indication of the possibility of legislation of this kind was in the form of a private Member's Bill—there was nothing to lead anyone to suppose that the Government intended to take up the Bill. It was absurd, therefore, to propose that date. The hon. Member might very well go back to the time at which the Government first decided to bring in the measure, although it seemed to him (Mr. Plunket) a strong proposition to say that they were to reverse the judgment of a Court of Law, before which a landlord had proceeded in accordance with his undoubted right, and from which he had obtained a judgment upon | the footing of which ho had subsequently made all his private arrangements. He (Mr. Plunket) knew no principle of legislation of this kind. As the Amendment stood, however, it was absurd; and he trusted hon. Members would have plenty of time to consider it.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Government had decided that the House should have plenty of time to consider the question. The matter would be brought up again on Report.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, that, so far as ho was concerned, he had not agreed to the adoption of any Amendment of this kind; but ho was quite ready to allow the question to stand over until the Report.
§ COLONEL NOLANcomplained of some of the principal speeches delivered on the question before the Committee having been inaudible. [Mr. WARTON: Speak up.] He should be glad to meet the wishes of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, who did not practice what he preached as to "speaking up." A great deal had come from the Front Benches on the subject of the Amendment before the Committee; but the Committee had not been able to gather a very clear idea of what was intended to be done. There were divergent views with regard to evictions—that"was obvious from the speeches of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Members for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson and Mr. Plunket). ["No, no !"] 352 He was glad to hear that coming from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland, and not from the late Paymaster General, because he preferred the opinions of the late Attorney General for Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman wished that all evictions should be included under this clause, and he (Colonel Nolan) understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Colleague not to wish that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland, in his first speech, said he was willing to accept the Amendment so far as judgments went. [Mr. GIBSON: No, no!] That proved the correctness of his observations as to the Committee having failed to obtain a clear idea of the views of the occupants of the Front Benches in consequence of those right hon. and learned Gentlemen having spoken in a low tone of voice. What he (Colonel Nolan) had said had appeared to him to be the right hon. and learned Gentleman's meaning. In Connemara, amongst his constituents, there had been quite recently some hundreds of eviction decrees obtained. The case of these poor people was this—they were holders of farms of £3, £4, and £5 a-year, and their circumstances were such that even if they were not evicted, but were called upon for the costs of eviction decrees, the payment of the £2 or £3 which would be demanded of them would affect them most seriously. The Government, in drawing up the Amendment, should distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable costs. If a landlord obtained 40 or 50 ejectment decrees, the solicitor was in the habit of saying, "I don't care if the decrees are not enforced, I recover my fee," for although the fee in each case might be small in amount when there were a large number of cases, the total amounted to something substantial. He (Colonel Nolan) was anxious that the Government, in putting down their Amendment, should take care in it to deal with the amount of costs in regard to small holdings. They (the Government) might with advantage adopt some such words as these—"such reasonable costs as the Land Commissioners may think fair." He only suggested these words, because he thought it would be desirable to leave some discretionary power with the 353 Land Commission to settle what costs were reasonable. Otherwise, in Connemara, where there were so many small holdings, the tenantry might be seriously injured by the issuing of these ejectment decrees. He did not desire the landlord to pay the costs actually out of pocket; but in the interest of the poor tenantry there should be some limitation as to costs. If there was no limitation, proceedings might be encouraged by the solicitors, who might say to the tenants—"How can you object to paying the costs of these decrees when you are not going to be evicted, and are not going to pay the rent?"
§ MR. GIVANsaid, if he had a more distinct expression of opinion on the part of Her Majesty's Government as to the course they intended to take, he should be willing to withdraw the Amendment. He thought he saw a disposition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) to accept the Amendment in a modified form.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be desirable in order to make the Amendment more comprehensive when he made the proposal on Report, to say, "any judgment, decree, or security, 'or any proceedings consequent thereupon.'" He presumed the Committee might gather from what had fallen from Her Majesty's Government with regard to the present Amendment that they would be also prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, to the effect that when one year's rent had been tendered, that tender should be a bar to proceedings for ejectment.
§ MR. FINDLATERsaid, that with regard to the question of costs, he would submit to the Committee and to the Government that something should be done to prevent the landlord who had taken proceedings against a tenant, say, since the 1st of April—when the Prime Minister first intimated that such a Bill as this would be brought forward—from recovering his costs, especially where such landlord had taken proceedings in the Superior Courts when he might with quite as great facility have brought His action in a Civil Bill Court. He was sorry to hear what had fallen from the hon. and 354 gallant Gentleman the Member for County Galway (Colonel Nolan) with regard to the practice of solicitors in lumping costs, and making much greater demands on the wretched tenants of the West of Ireland than those tenants were able, or ought to be asked to pay. He (Mr. Findlater) must say that such a practice was entirely unknown to him, and in that statement he thought he should be borne out by other Members of the Committee.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) would not really effect the object the hon. Member had in view—that it would not do more than the Bill would already effect. What the hon. Member, seemingly, wished to effect was, that where decrees had been granted by the Court, and not yet executed, there should be some stay to the proceedings until the tribunal appointed by the Bill had given its decision with regard to arrears. It would then follow, in all probability, that the decrees which had been previously granted would be null and void, and could not be executed against the tenant. At all events, whether that was the intention of the hon. Member or not, that seemed to him (Mr. Parnell) to be the practical object they ought to try to arrive at. No Court in Ireland, when a decree had once been granted, had a right to stay the execution of it; and it followed, therefore, that in the case of all the decrees that had been granted by the different Courts during the last five or six months—and which had not yet been executed—for the eviction of tenants, the decrees might be proceeded with if the landlords desired it, and the tenants might be evicted, having nothing but the period of redemption to look forward to, and the admission of this claim to bar their being turned out of their holdings. He (Mr. Parnell) would draw attention to the fact that the practical object they wanted to arrive at was this—that in cases in which the decrees had been granted and not yet executed, and the tenant made an application under the Bill, there should be some plan by which the execution of those decrees could be put a stop to until the Court had had an opportunity of hearing the case. That would do all they wanted. It would carry out more than the Amendment, which would only af- 355 feet what would follow after the tribunal had adjudicated on the question of arrears, and it might be a long time before that adjudication was given. The tenant might have been—very probably would have been—evicted. There was nothing to prevent the landlord evicting the tenant, throwing the costs on him, and turning him out of his house. Where ejectment decrees had been obtained to prevent tenants making applications under this Bill, on the tenant paying a year's rent the provisions of the Bill should require that there should be a stay of proceedings.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, these were two different things. The hon. Member for the City of Cork proposed that where a Court under the Bill had not given a decision, a judgment or decree should be arrested, the hon. Member for Monaghan proposing that the judgment or decree should be arrested on an order for payment of arrears having been made by the Land Commission.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Findlater), who had referred to him, had given to his words a colouring slightly different to that which he had intended. He (Colonel Nolan) had not intended to convey that solicitors in the West of Ireland did what was wrong. What he could say from his own experience was that the solicitors had an arrangement whereby, where there were evictions and the landlords had to pay the costs, there should be a certain scale of payment. He wanted the Land Commission to be able to say what scale of costs the tenants should pay.
MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, it struck him that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had really suggested the right way of dealing with this question, and it was this—that after they had provided that all the antecedent arrears were released and extinguished, they should then stay all proceedings for the recovery of those arrears, and all judgments brought in consequence of proceedings for the recovery of the arrears.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, there was an Amendment of that kind to be proposed later.
§ MR. GIVANsaid, they were all agreed upon the subject; but the time 356 for the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had not yet come.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that his Amendment lower down only provided for the case of a tenant against whom proceedings wore taken or were pending; but he doubted whether it provided for a tenant against whom a decree had been granted, but who had not yet been evicted. It appeared that the Government had an opportunity of meeting the case of such tenants in framing the Amendment they proposed to bring in.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that such cases would be met under the clause to be proposed by the Government.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GLADSTONEproposed to insert, at the end of Sub-section 2—
For the purposes of this Act the saleable value of the tenant's interest may, if the Commissioners think it reasonable, be taken into account in ascertaining whether the tenant is unable to discharge such antecedent arrears.It was not necessary to indicate the tenant right in this way; but it was necessary to indicate what was intended. Some difficulty was felt by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) as to the wording of the Amendment, particularly as to the word asset; and he (Mr. Gladstone), as the Committee would see, had somewhat altered the Amendment. As it originally stood, the Amendment ran—For the purposes of this Act the saleable value of the tenant's interest may, if the Commissioners think it reasonable, be taken into account as an asset.He was not quite certain whether he understood the exact nature of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's (Mr. Gibson's) objection; but there was no. real necessity for the introduction of the word "asset" at all. His right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland was of opinion that the word "asset" might be very properly struck out; and, therefore, he (Mr. Gladstone) had amended the Amendment in the way the Committee would observe. He proposed to give the discretion to the Court, and thus to avoid any objection to the particular word "asset." It was impossible for the Committee to find 357 any form of words in which a rigid rule could be embodied, and all that could be done was to give virtual directions to the Committee by a clear exposition of the general view of the Committee, and the Government thought that view would be conveyed effectually to the Commissioners' minds by taking this Amendment in conjunction with the words—Without loss of his holding, or deprivation of the means necessary for the cultivation thereof.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 5, at the end of sub-section 2, to insert the words, "For the purposes of this Act the saleable value of the tenant's interest may, if the Commissioners think it reasonable, be taken into account in ascertaining whether the tenant is unable to discharge such antecedent arrears."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to the Prime Minister's proposed Amendment—namely, to leave out "may, if," and insert "shall, so far as." He was aware that ordinarily in Acts of Parliament the word "may" was interpreted as "shall;" but he could not help thinking that if they meant shall it was better to say shall. Moreover, even if "may" by itself meant "shall," he did not see how "may, if they think it reasonable," could be so interpreted. Moreover, he did not wish to leave the Commissioners to decide whether the tenant right should be taken into consideration at all, but only how far they should do so. The difference was very important. It was well that their meaning should be distinct in this matter, and that it should not be left open to the Commissioners to take the value of the tenant's interest or not as they thought right. In justice to the Commissioners, Parliament ought to make their meaning perfectly clear in this matter. The Committee would remember that in a previous part of the clause they had adopted the words—
Without loss of his holding, or deprivation of the means necessary for the cultivation thereof,and that limited the power the Commissioners would have. He could not help thinking that the adoption of these words would make the matter clear. The tenant right ought to be fairly taken into consideration, and the question was how 358 far it should be taken into consideration. He believed that his Amendment would carry out the intentions of the Government, which he understood to be that the Commissioners should consider the value of the tenant right, subject to certain reservations. If his proposal were adopted, the Amendment would read—For the purposes of this Act the saleable value of the tenant's interests shall, so far as the Commissioners think it reasonable, be taken into account," &c.Such an Amendment would carry out the intentions of Parliament, and it would leave no doubt as to what was intended. He ventured, therefore, very respectfully to submit to his right hon. Friend his Amendment to the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "may, if," and insert the words "shall, so far as."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'may, if,' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was afraid the Government could not accept the Amendment. The view of the Government was that in many cases it would be quite right that the saleable interest of the holding should be taken into consideration; but it was also their view that in many cases that interest ought not to be taken into consideration. For instance, in the case of many small holdings, the saleable interest was of no value at all. He appreciated the position taken up by his hon. Friend; but he considered that the words proposed would be too binding upon the Commissioners.
§ COLONEL BARNEinfinitely preferred the Amendment of the hon. Baronet to the milk-and-watery Amendment of the Prime Minister. The tenants in arrear were virtually bankrupt, and it was a well-known principle of English law that in the case of a bankrupt all the assets should be placed at the disposal of the creditors. Why, therefore, should not all the assets of an Irish farmer be seized just as was the case in England in the matter of bankruptcy? Why were the Irish tenants to be treated with so much more mercy than the English people who fell into the same position? An English bankrupt was bound to meet his creditors in an honourable 359 manner, but not so with the Irish bankrupt. Indeed, the principle upon which the House of Commons was now asked to proceed was that if a man committed an outrage, concession was to be at once made to him. The best advice that Englishmen could take now was to commit outrage upon their creditors, and the Government, according to their present principle, would at once legislate in their favour. He had not the slightest faith in the discretion of the Commissioners, and by the Amendment of the Prime Minister the whole tiling was to be put at the discretion of those Commissioners, who had shown themselves one-sided throughout—who had gone against the landlords in every possible instance, had reduced the rentals by 25 per cent, and thereby mulcted the whole of the Irish landlords of about one-fourth of their incomes. The Conservative Party was supposed to be fond of permissive legislation; but now that legislation was coming from the other side of the House. Surely "shall" was a better word than "may," if it was desired that the legislation should have any effect at all. For these reasons he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that this was as important an Amendment as could be introduced in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had admitted that in many localities in Ireland there was a considerable tenant right which ought to be taken into account; and he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was of opinion that unless the words were made stronger than those of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman—unless some such words as those proposed by the hon. Baronet were introduced, the Amendment would serve no good purpose. He knew there were many who would not agree with him when he said that Irishmen, as a rule, did not trust the Sub - Commissioners; and for this reason, amongst others, it was a very unfair thing on the part of Parliament not to lay down that which it absolutely meant. It was not intended to deprive the tenant of the moans of cultivating his farm; it was not intended to seize his ploughs and harrows, and horses and cattle; but the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that where there was a considerable asset in the shape of tenant right 360 it should be taken into consideration. Therefore, in his (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) opinion, it ought to be an absolute instruction to the Commissioners that the tenant right should be properly and fairly valued. They learned the other night that all over Ireland there was tenant right, and it was stated on both sides of the House that not only in Ulster, but in the South and in the West—in fact, in all the Provinces of Ireland—there was a very considerable tenant right. There was something more stated, and that was that the tenant right of the small holdings, except those in the extreme West, fetched more money than the larger holdings. It was stated that the tenant right of one holding, the rental of which had been reduced from£3 15s. to £3, had fetched £70 in hard cash. It was proposed to tax the people of England, those who were little able to bear the burden, in order to make a gift to the tenant farmers of Ireland; and ho therefore thought it was a most unfair, unjust, and unwise proceeding that in this matter all the assets of the people to be benefited should not be taken into account and fairly and properly valued. He hoped the hon. Baronet would not run away from his Amendment, but would go to a division. It was but fair and right and proper that the Commissioners should have a clear knowledge of what they were supposed to do.
MR. GORSTsaid, the objection he had to the Amendment now before the Committee was the very wide discretion which would be given to the Commissioners. The Amendment in the form in which it had been introduced by the Government was a very delusive one, because if there had been no Amendment proposed at all, and if no such principle as was contained in the Amendment were put in the Bill at all, the Commissioners would be obliged to take into account the pecuniary value of the tenant right, so long as the tenant was not displaced, and so long as he was not deprived of the means of cultivating his holding. It was but fair, in estimating the tenant's pecuniary position, that the full value of the tenant right should be taken into consideration, and if the words of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) were adopted the Commissioners would have no discretion in the matter. The words of the right hon. Gentleman the 361 Prime Minister, however, would give the Commissioners most absolute discretion; they would not be obliged to take into account the tenant right at all. The proper form of words to carry out the views of the right hon. Gentleman would have been—
The Commissioners shall not he obliged, unless they think fit, to take into account the tenant right at all.That was what he understood the right hon. Gentleman meant.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had stated that it would be quite impossible to embody in terms directions to the Commissioners which would actually draw the distinction between cases in which the tenant right ought to be taken into account, and cases in which the tenant right ought not to be taken into account. That being so, there ought only to be a general statement of the intentions of Parliament.
MR. GORSTsaid, that that was just what he had been contending. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman left the absolute discretion to the Commissioners. There was no Court of Appeal which could make the Commissioners take into account the tenant right, if they did not think proper to do so. The words of the Amendment left their discretion in the matter completely unfettered. The Amendment of the hon. Baronet did improve the Amendment a little, because, under his Amendment, the Commissioners would be obliged to take the pecuniary value of the tenant right into their consideration, but only to the extent which they themselves pleased. Though they must technically take it into their consideration, they might put no value on it at all; so that, whether the Amendment as it stood, or the Amendment as amended by the hon. Baronet, was adopted by the Committee, the extent to which the pecuniary value of the tenant right was taken into consideration was in the most absolute discretion of the Commissioners. They had had experience of the results of giving the Commissioners a discretion of this kind, and Parliament ought to lay down rules which the Commissioners should observe. Parliament ought not to allow the Commissioners to lay down their own rules—in fact, it was the absolute duty of the Legislature to point out in what cases the value of the tenant right ought to be taken into considera- 362 tion, and in what cases it ought not. In an earlier part of the clause it was provided that the tenant should not be deprived of the means of cultivating his farm; and, subject to this condition, it did seem to him (Mr. Gorst) right and proper that the Commissioners ought to take the tenant right into consideration. The Amendment, as now proposed, introduced a new and an unknown discretion. In interpreting this Act the Commissioners could take into consideration the tenant right or not, exactly at their own discretion, and that was what he strongly objected to. It was not the way in which they ought to legislate under any circumstances, and certainly it was not the way in which Parliament ought to legislate for Ireland. He called upon the Government to display in the body of their Bill when it was they meant the tenant right to be taken into consideration, and when they meant it not to be.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) objected to the Commissioners having any discretion whatever, and the analogy between the present case and the case of the Poor Law had been alluded to many times during the discussion; and he wondered whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was aware of the powers under the Poor Law; whether he was aware that the Poor Law was administered in an entirely different manner in different parts of England; whether he was aware that a man might possess considerable assets when receiving relief in the North of England, whilst he could not possess assets under similar circumstances in the South of England; whether he did not think that as much discretion as had always been vested in the Poor Law administrators should not be vested in the Land Commissioners in the present case. A circumstance was alluded to last night which strongly bore upon the present case. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) referred to what had been done in Lancashire in the time of the Cotton Famine. He (Mr. Arnold) was able to speak from experience of the way in which the funds voted by that House towards the relief of distress in Lancashire at that time were dispensed, and he knew that money was given to men who at that time possessed considerable assets. He knew of many cases in which men had shares in public Companies, and public 363 Societies, and Co-operative Societies, and care was taken that they should not be compelled to dispose of that little property before they could reap the advantages which were offered them by that House. The object of this clause was to enable the small tenants, in conjunction with the larger tenants of Ireland, to enjoy, and have the opportunity of enjoying, their rights under the Act of Parliament of last year; and it seemed absolutely necessary that the Committee should reject the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock). The Amendment of the hon. Baronet would compel the Commissioners to take into account, to a certain extent, the tenant right, however small it might be. The tenant right might be practically of no value—of no assessable value—but the Commissioners would be compelled, under the language of the hon. Baronet, to take account of it, however small it might be. The words proposed by the hon. Baronet seemed extremely objectionable, and he (Mr. Arnold) ventured to think that they would be so interpreted by the Committee.
§ VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, because, although, as his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) had just said, the Amendment was but a small improvement upon the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, still it was a substantial improvement. It would show the Commissioners, or whoever were deputed to administer this Act, that it was the intention of Parliament, in passing this measure, that the tenant right should be taken into consideration as an asset. He based his opposition upon the words which were used by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), the other night, when speaking upon this Bill in the House. The right hon. Gentleman, talking of the tenant, said—
That tenant right is his own property. He could not be evicted from his farm. The property is secured under the Act of last year. It should be, therefore, quite competent to those who adjudicate upon the matter, to ask the question and ascertain the value of the tenant right just as well as that of the cattle on his farm."—[3 Hansard, eclxxi. 1643.]These being the words of one of Her Majesty's Ministers, who, he (Viscount Folkestone) presumed, was on that occa- 364 sion speaking with a sense of responsibility which belonged to a Minister of the Crown, he thought the Committee would do well in accepting the Amendment of the hon. Baronet opposite.
§ VISCOUNT GALWAYagreed with the views expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that too much discretion ought not to be left to the Commissioners, and, in support of that contention, he might quote a speech of the Prime Minister, in which the right hon. Gentleman said that in a great many of the cases the Commissioners ought not to be able to take the tenant right into consideration. The right hon. Gentleman had cast some doubt upon the competency of his own Commissioners. He (Viscount Galway) saw no reason whatever why the tenant right should not be brought before the Commissioners; in fact, it was his opinion that every asset of the tenant, whether small or great, should, in this matter, be taken into account.
§ MR. MAGNIACsaid, it was satisfactory to know where they were. It was very satisfactory, because there had been a great many debates and a great many Amendments, and he admitted that if they could agree to meet on some plain issue, and settle the question, it would be greatly to the advantage of the Committee and everyone concerned. He was sorry to say he found himself in the uncomfortable position of differing from his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), with whom he generally agreed, and he had also the still more painful feeling of differing from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. The issue that was placed before his (Mr. Magniac's) mind was perfectly plain. The real question was whether the Bill was to be a nullity or not. In one respect he thought the scope of the Bill had been very much over-estimated by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. If hon. Members had studied the Memorandum which was issued by the Treasury they would have seen that the Bill practically dealt with about 430,000 people, whose holdings averaged about £15. He was quite aware that an average was a very unreliable thing to go upon; but he thought that the margin was so narrow that an average for this purpose might fairly be taken. 365 The maximum rental under the Bill was £30, but the minimum rental was unascertained—he thought it would go as low as £2 or 30s. That was about the range of rental which was to be dealt with by this Bill. The 430,000 holdings represented a rental of about £6,000,000, and he understood that one-third of that sum would come to be dealt with by the Bill; and, therefore, it was absurd to talk of tenants going away with an enormous sum in their pockets. He (Mr. Magniac) thought it would be difficult to find an Irish tenant going away under the most favourable circumstances with anything that could be called a large sum. In fact, he believed that, with very few exceptions indeed, the sum which a tenant might possibly go away with would only be sufficient to take him to America, for instance, and support him there for about six months on his arrival. That was the maximum which could be expected under the Bill. ["Question!"] That was the question, because the Amendment had reference with regard to the point whether a tenant should go away with anything or nothing. The effect of the Amendment would be to strip the tenant, practically, of everything he had, and leave himself in that hopeless condition from which it was now proposed to raise him. The object of the Bill, as the Prime Minister said, was the protection of the tenant, and the better cultivation of the soil. A shorter description of the object could not be found. What was the Amendment which they were discussing? It was that the tenant's interest should be taken into account as an asset. They were dealing with 430,000 persons on the verge of pauperism, and in a state of discontent and disaffection. Did hon. Members suppose that by using the word "asset" they were going to settle this question? If they did, they were greatly mistaken. ["Oh!"] He had a right to state his opinion, based on a not inconsiderable commercial experience. He could not help thinking that the only way to realize an asset was either to sell it or to obtain a loan upon it. Sale must be contemplated if the Commissioners were to have in their minds that there was any money value whatever attaching to the thing. He did not quite know how they were going to deal with it by way of sale, although he knew that a Mem- 366 ber of the Cabinet, a few nights ago, said the tenant's interest was a realizable asset. The Prime Minister, however, had said that this right could not be sold, for the simple reason that a sale would involve the loss of the holding. What were the Commissioners to take into account? If the tenant right could not be sold, how were they going to raise money upon it? Was the State to advance money upon a security which they themselves acknowledged could not bo sold? What security would there be in case they advanced money in respect to the tenant right? The Committee was in this dilemma—that it was proposed to direct the Commissioners to take into account some species of security which they could neither sell, or lend money on, or induce other people to lend money on. He thought the Government did not know the strength of their own case, and he believed that, in a moment of enthusiasm, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) was carried away by visions of large sums of tenant right which were hung out to him from the opposite side of the House. He believed that at the moment the right hon. Gentleman did not take into consideration the existence of the possibility and probability of there being a vast proportion of cases in which his remarks would not apply. He (Mr. Magniac) felt certain that if the question had been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman in the way in which he could deal with such questions, a certain reservation would naturally have been observed by him. He believed that in reality what was now proposed would not go nearly far enough for hon. Members opposite; but it went a great deal too far for all of those who had a strong desire to see the Act successfully worked. He trusted that hon. Members who were better acquainted with the question than himself would come forward and express their views. The sums realized by the sale of a tenant's right would, in nine cases out of every ten, not be more than sufficient, even under the most favourable circumstances, to take them across the Atlantic.
§ MR. PLUNKETsaid, he did not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman who had just down through his speech, which he thought was applied to the question generally. As to the particular Amend- 367 ment now before the Committee, the hon. Gentleman began by saying that he knew exactly where he was; but it turned out that he found himself unable to agree with the Amendment of the Prime Minister, or with the Amendment upon the Amendment, which had been proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock), and then, not being prepared to endorse either of the propositions, the hon. Member went on to discuss something which was in his own head, and not before the Committee. The only point to which he (Mr. Plunket) ventured to ask the attention of the Committee was this. At present they were concerned principally in discussing whether they should adopt the Amendment in the form proposed by the Prime Minister or in the form proposed by the hon. Baronet. Now, the Prime Minister proposed that—
For the purposes of this Act the saleable value of the tenant's interest may, if the Commissioners think it reasonable, be taken into account in ascertaining whether the tenant is unable to discharge such antecedent arrears.And then the hon. Baronet proposed to alter that by saying—That the tenant's interest shall, so far as the Commissioners think it reasonable, be taken into account," &c.Now, upon what ground was it that the Prime Minister was not prepared to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Baronet? The right hon. Gentleman refused to accept the Amendment on the plea of the extreme poverty of the tenants who were proposed to be relieved by this clause; but the right hon. Gentleman must remember that he had already, by words he had introduced in the Bill, disposed of those cases whore a realization of the saleable interests of the tenant would create the eviction of the tenant, in so far as the tenant would be too poor to keep his holding, and in so far as the adoption of such a course might interfere with the proper management of his farm. It seemed to him (Mr. Plunket) that the difference between the form suggested by the Prime Minister and that suggested by the hon. Baronet was simply this. The Prime Minister's words would seem to make the presumption that the saleable value of the tenant's interest was not to be taken into account; the words of the hon. Baronet would leave the presumption that the saleable value of the 368 tenant's interest was to be taken into account so far the Commissioners thought it reasonable. Now, it appeared to him that the words of the hon. Baronet entirely covered the case suggested by the Prime Minister—namely, that where the holding was very small, and that where the tenant was very poor, the Commissioners would not deem that it was reasonable to take the tenant right into consideration. The words of the Prime Minister put the matter in this way—they made it an exception to the general rule that the saleable interest of the tenant in his holding was not to be taken into account. Now, that was just the proposition which shocked the sense of the Committee when it was first made, and a proposition which was denounced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright). It was because ho (Mr. Plunket) thought it was most important to exclude from the Bill the principle that the saleable interest of the tenant in his holding was not to be taken into account that he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Sir John Lubbock) as against the Amendment proposed by the Prime Minister. It really came to this. Whether the Commissioners were, in the first place, to regard the presumption that the saleable interest was to be taken into account, and then exclude such cases as they thought would be reasonable to apply the principle, or to assume that the usual saleable interest was to be included, and only exclude where they thought, from the extreme poverty of the tenants, it would be unreasonable to take it into account.
§ DR. LYONSpointed out that if the Committee declined to insert the word "shall," instead of "may," they did not diminish the force of the obligation on the Commissioners to inquire into the circumstances of the tenant's position. This was an important Amendment, because it affected a considerable proportion of that class of people whom it was most desirable by the help of this Bill to relieve. The discretion given to the Commissioners enabled them to deal at once with a very large proportion of cases. All that great class of cases which lay under the valuation of £10 would practically come at once into view, and could be immediately disposed of. It would not be 369 necessary to inquire into the question of the ability of the tenants to raise money or not upon their tenant right. It must be borne in mind that there was a very considerable majority of all the holdings in Ireland valued at between £4 and £10—upwards of 400,000. It was not desired by the promoters of this Bill, nor was it a principle of the Bill, to evict the tenant from his holding. One of the main objects of the Bill was to keep the tenant on his holding, to put him in a better position for the future, and to enable him to work on into a position of comparative independence. If, however, tenants were forced to realize their tenant right, what position would they be left in? To all intents and purposes they would be ejected from their farms, practically they would have to go out of their farms; they must sell or they must borrow at a perfectly ruinous rate of interest, which would eventually lead to their eviction. Having once given the discretion to the Commissioners, it seemed to him that it must be left in their hands to decide whether, in any individual case, the tenant right should be taken into account. At a later stage of the Bill, he intended to propose that tenants found on inquiry not to be entitled to "gift" on account of the interest they were shown to have in their holdings should be entitled to apply for "loans" in a manner to be hereinafter provided.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock), in proposing his Amendment, had said the Commissioners would be at liberty to exclude the small holders under certain circumstances. In this case there was no distinction between the words of the Amendment and the words of the Proviso; and if there was no distinction between the Amendment and the Proviso ho would like to know why the Proviso was moved at all? It was obvious that the Proviso was not intended to leave the discretion to the Commissioners only as to the extent of the amount to which they should charge the tenant right; it did not leave discretion to charge it at all. Suppose if, in order to save the holding, to save the working of the holding, it was necessary for the tenant to raise money upon his tenant right, was it to be understood that the Commissioners should take into account the tenant right? Under the Words of the hon. Baronet the Commis- 370 sioners would he bound to charge it to a certain extent. He did not care whether they charged it to the extent of 1s. or 5s. or £10, they would have to charge it to some amount or other. He believed that upon the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) the Amendment of the Prime Minister ought to be accepted.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Synan), and also the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold), seemed to forget that they had already adopted the words—
Without loss of his holding or deprivation of the means necessary for the cultivation thereof.The question they had now to determine was whether they were, or were not, to consider the value of the tenant right in deciding whether money should be given by the taxpayers of this country to relieve the tenant or not, bearing in mind that the tenant was not to lose his holding, or to be deprived of the necessary means for its cultivation. Personally, he would be quite willing to leave the discretion to the Commissioners. The Prime Minister had told them that the words "may" and "shall" meant the same in an Act of Parliament; but he (Sir John Lubbock) hardly thought the Committee would consider that the two words had the same meaning in this case. What would be the effect of the Prime Minister's Amendment on the minds of the people of Ireland, and on the minds of the people of England? It was very important that the people of Ireland should not think that the Commissioners were dealing hardly by them; and if Parliament left it to the option of the Commissioners to say whether they would take the tenant right into consideration or not, they would impose upon the Commissioners the burden of a very heavy responsibility. It must also be remembered that they were going to take a considerable sum of money from the taxpayers of England. He was quite in favour of that being done under the circumstances; but it was most important that the taxpayers of this country should feel that their money was not going to be lightly voted away. It was most desirable that they should feel that that money would not be granted to those people who were not in real 371 necessity. lie was anxious, therefore, that the Committee should leave no doubt whatever as to what the meaning of the clause was; and he ventured to think that the words which he had suggested were words which would best carry out the intentions of the Prime Minister himself.
§ MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he could not quite understand the argument of the hon. Baronet, who said ho intended that the Commissioners should have discretion. If they were to have a discretion, he could not see a great difference between the words he used and those of the Prime Minister. It seemed to him altogether a question whether there was or was not to be a discretion; and he thought, on the whole, that the words of the Prime Minister might safely be added. Ho agreed with the hon. Baronet that they ought to say "shall be" taken into account without any discretion, leaving the words already used to take away those cases of poverty indicated by the Prime Minister. He was afraid even a decision upon this Amendment would not close the controversy; but on this Amendment the Committee wore discussing a very nice question of language, and not a material part of the matter.
§ MR. THOMAS COLLINSsaid, there was no doubt that both the Amendment of the Prime Minister and the hon. Baronet gave a discretion to the Commissioners; but the Prime Minister's Amendment rather favoured the theory that the property of the tenant should not be a saleable asset, whilst the Amendment of the hon. Baronet laid down a spirit of direction to the Commissioners that where a tenant was in a position to pay he ought to pay. This was a question which affected English Members and constituencies quite as much as those of Ireland, because the bulk of this money would come from the Consolidated Fund; and on that account he thought it desirable that the Committee should pass the Amendment in the form suggested by the hon. Baronet as giving a sort of bias to the decisions of the Commissioners, who would then be able to say that the intention of Parliament clearly was that where a tenant had a tenant right as an available asset that should be chargeable. He hoped the Committee would pass the hon. Baronet's Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 229; Noes 155: Majority 74.
374| AYES. | |
| Acland, C. T. D. | Craig, W. Y. |
| Acland, Sir T. D. | Cross, J. K. |
| Agnew, W. | Crum, A. |
| Ainsworth, D. | Cunliffe, Sir R. A. |
| Allen, H. G. | Davey, H. |
| Allen, W. S. | Davies, D. |
| Amory, Sir J. H. | Davies, W. |
| Anderson, G. | Dickson, J. |
| Armitage, B. | Dickson, T. A. |
| Armitstead, G. | Dilke, Sir C. W. |
| Arnold, A. | Dillwyn, L. L. |
| Asher, A. | Dodds, J. |
| Ashley, hon. E. M. | Dodson, rt. hon. J. G. |
| Baldwin, E. | Duckham, T. |
| Balfour, J. B. | Duff, R. W. |
| Balfour, J. S. | Earp, T. |
| Barnes, A. | Edwards, P. |
| Barran, J. | Egerton, Adm. hon. F. |
| Bass, Sir A. | Errington, G. |
| Beaumont, W. B. | Farquharson, Dr. R. |
| Bellingham, A. H. | Fawcett, rt. hon. H. |
| Biggar, J. G. | Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B. |
| Blake, J. A. | Findlater, W. |
| Blennerhassett, R. P. | Firth, J. F. B. |
| Bolton, J. C. | Fitzmaurice, Lord E. |
| Borlase, W. C. | Foljambe, F. J. S. |
| Brand, H. R. | Forster, Sir C. |
| Brassey, H. A. | Fowler, H. H. |
| Brassey, Sir T. | Fowler, W. |
| Briggs, W. E. | Fry, L. |
| Bright, rt. hon. J. | Fry, T. |
| Bright, J. (Manchester) | Givan, J. |
| Brinton, J. | Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E. |
| Broadhurst, H. | Gladstone, If. J. |
| Brogden, A. | Gladstone, W. H. |
| Brooks, M. | Gower, hon. E. F. L. |
| Brown, A. H. | Grant, A. |
| Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C. | Grant, D. |
| Bruce, hon. R. P. | Gray, E. D. |
| Bryce, J. | Gurdon, R. T. |
| Buchanan, T. R. | Hamilton, J. G. C |
| Burt, T. | Hardcastle, J. A. |
| Buxton, F. W. | Hastings, G. W. |
| Byrne, G. M. | Hayter, Sir A. D. |
| Caine, W. S. | Healy, T. M. |
| Callan, P. | Henderson, F. |
| Campbell, Sir G. | Heneage, E. |
| Campbell -Bannerman, H. | Henry, M. |
| Herschell, Sir F. | |
| Carington, hon. R. | Hibbert, J. T. |
| Causton, R. K. | Hill, T. R. |
| Cavendish, Lord E. | Hollond, J. R. |
| Chamberlain, rt. hn. J. | Holms, W. |
| Cheetham, J. P. | Howard, E. S. |
| Childers, right hon. H. C. E. | Illingworth, A. |
| Inderwick, F. A. | |
| Clarke, J. C. | James, C. |
| Clifford, G. C. | James, Sir H. |
| Cohen, A. | James, W. H. |
| Collings, J. | Jardine, R. |
| Colman, J. J. | Jenkins, D. J. |
| Colthurst, Col. D. La T. | Jenkins, Sir J. J. |
| Corbet, W. J. | Jerningham, H. E. H. |
| Corbett, J. | Johnson, E. |
| Courtney, L. H. | Johnson, W. M. |
| Cowper, hon. H, F. | Jones-Parry, L. |
| Kinnear, J. | Porter, A. M. |
| Labouchere, H. | Powell, W. R. H. |
| Lawson, Sir W. | Power, J. O' C. |
| Lea, T. | Power, R. |
| Leahy, J. | Pulley, J. |
| Leake, R. | Ralli, P. |
| Leamy, E. | Ramsden, Sir J. |
| Lee, H. | Rathbone, W. |
| Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S. | Reid, R. T. |
| Rendel, S. | |
| Lloyd, M. | Richard, H. |
| Lymington, Viscount | Richardson, T. |
| Lyons, R. D. | Roberts, J. |
| M'Arthur, A. | Rogers, J. E. T. |
| M'Arthur, W. | Russell, G. W. E. |
| M'Carthy, J. | Rylands, P. |
| M'Clure, Sir T. | Samuelson, H. |
| M'Coan, J. C. | Sexton, T. |
| Macfarlane, D. H. | Shaw, W. |
| M'Intyre, Æneas J. | Sheil, E. |
| Mackie, R. B. | Sheridan, H. B. |
| M' Lagan, P. | Shield, H. |
| Magniac, C. | Simon, Serjeant J. |
| Maitland, W. F. | Smyth, P. J. |
| Marjoribanks, E. | Spencer, hon. C. R. |
| Martin, P. | Stanley, hon. E. L. |
| Martin, R. B. | Stewart, J. |
| Maskelyne, M. H. Story- | Sullivan, T. D. |
| Mason, H. | Summers, W. |
| Milbank, Sir F. A. | Synan, E. J. |
| Molloy, B. C. | Tennant, C. |
| Monk, C. J. | Thomasson, J. P. |
| Moore, A. | Thompson, T. C. |
| Morgan, rt. hn. G. O. | Tillett, J. H. |
| Morley, A. | Torrens, W. T. M 'C. |
| Mundella, rt. hn. A. J. | Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O. |
| Nolan, Colonel J. P. | Vivian, Sir H. H. |
| O'Beirne, Major F. | Waugh, E. |
| O'Brien, Sir P. | Webster, J. |
| O'Connor, A. | Wedderburn, Sir D. |
| O'Connor, T. P. | Whitbread, S. |
| O' Gorman Mahon, Col. The | Whitworth, B. |
| Wiggin, H. | |
| O' Kelly, J. | Williams, S. C. E. |
| O'Shaughnessy, R. | Williamson, S. |
| O'Shea, W. H. | Wilson, C. H. |
| O'Sullivan, W. H. | Wodehouse, E. R. |
| Paget, T. T. | Woolf, S. |
| Palmer, J. H. | |
| Parnell, C. S. | TELLERS. |
| Pease, A. | Grosvenor, Lord R. |
| Pease, Sir J. W. | Kensington, Lord |
| Peddie, J. D. |
| NOES. | |
| Alexander, Colonel C. | Broadley, W. H. H. |
| Amherst, W. A. T. | Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F. |
| Archdale, W. H. | |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, E. | Brooke, Lord |
| Aylmer, J. E. F. | Bruce, Sir H. H. |
| Bailey, Sir J. R. | Bruce, hon. T. |
| Balfour, A. J. | Burghley, Lord |
| Barne, F. St. J. N. | Cameron, D. |
| Barttelot, Sir W. B. | Campbell, J. A. |
| Bateson, Sir T. | Cartwright, W. C. |
| Beach, rt. hon. Sir M. H. | Castlereagh, Viscount |
| Bentinck, rt. hon. G. C. | Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G. |
| Beresford, G. De la P. | Clarke, E. |
| Birkbeck, E. | Collins, T. |
| Blackburne, Col. J. I. | Compton, F. |
| Bourke, rt. hon. R. | Crichton, Viscount |
| Brise, Colonel R. | Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A. |
| Dalrymple, C. | Maxwell, Sir H. E. |
| Davenport, H. T. | Miles, C. W. |
| Dawnay, Col. hn. L. P. | Monckton, F. |
| Dawnay, hon. G. C. | Morgan, hon. F. |
| De Worms, Baron H. | Moss, R. |
| Digby, Col. hon. E. | Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J.R. |
| Dixon-Hartland, F. D. | |
| Donaldson-Hudson, C. | Mulholland, J. |
| Douglas, A. Akers- | Murray, C. J. |
| Dundas, hon. J. C. | Newport, Viscount |
| Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H. | Nicholson, W. N. |
| Ecroyd, W. F. | Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S. H. |
| Emlyn, Viscount | |
| Estcourt, G. S. | Northcote, H. S. |
| Ewart, W. | Onslow, D. |
| Fellowes, W. H. | Paget, R. H. |
| Fenwick-Bisset, M. | Parker, C. S. |
| Filmer, Sir E. | Patrick, R. W. Cochran- |
| Finch, G. H. | |
| Fitzpatrick, hn. B.E.B | Peek, Sir H. W. |
| Fitzwilliam, hn. H. W. | Pell, A. |
| Fletcher, Sir H. | Pemberton, E. L. |
| Floyer, J. | Percy, Earl |
| Folkestone, Viscount | Percy, Lord A. |
| Forester, C. T. W. | Plunket, rt. hon. D. R. |
| Foster, W. H. | Price, Captain G. E. |
| Fowler, R. N. | Raikes, rt. hon. H. C. |
| Fremantle, hon. T. F. | Ramsay, J. |
| Freshfield, C. K. | Rankin, J. |
| Galway, Viscount | Ridley, Sir M. W. |
| Garnier, J. C. | Ross, A. H. |
| Gibson, rt. hon. E. | St. Aubyn, W. M. |
| Gore-Langton, W. S. | Salt, T. |
| Gorst, J. E. | Schreiber, C. |
| Goschen, rt. hon. G. J. | Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G. |
| Grantham, W. | Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J. |
| Gregory, G. B. | |
| Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. | Severne, J. E. |
| Sinclair, Sir J. G. T. | |
| Harcourt, E. W. | Smith, A. |
| Harvey, Sir R. B. | Smith, rt. hon. W. H. |
| Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D. | Stanhope, hon. E. |
| Stanley, E. J. | |
| Herbert, hon. S. | Stuart, H. V. |
| Hicks, E. | Sykes, C. |
| Hill, Lord A. W. | Talbot, C. R. M. |
| Holland, Sir H. T. | Talbot, J. G. |
| Home, Lt.-Col. D. M. | Taylor, rt. hn. Col. T. E. |
| Hope, rt. hn. A. J. B. B. | Thomson, H. |
| Jackson, W. L. | Thornhill, T. |
| Kennard, Col. E. H. | Tollemache, H. J. |
| Kennaway, Sir J. H. | Tollemache, hon. W. F. |
| Lawrence, Sir T. | Tottenham, A. L. |
| Leigh, R. | Walrond, Col. W. H. |
| Leighton, Sir B. | Warton, C. N. |
| Lindsay, Sir R. L. | Welby-Gregory, Sir W. |
| Loder, R. | Whitley, E. |
| Long, W. H. | Wilmot, Sir H. |
| Lopes, Sir M. | Winn, R. |
| Lowther, rt. hon. J. | Wolff, Sir H. D. |
| Lowther, hon. W. | Wroughton, P. |
| Macartney, J. W. E. | Yorke, J. R. |
| M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J. | |
| Mac Iver, D. | TELLERS. |
| Makins, Colonel W. T. | Grey, A. H. G. |
| Master, T. W. C. | Lubbock, Sir J. |
Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper which he hoped the Government would accept. He proposed to insert—"If the holding be over the value of £15, and." 375 His object was not only that the tenant right should be available, but to expedite the work, because it was obvious that a great deal more time would be required if the Commissioners had to inquire into the eases of tenants under £15 a-year than if they had to inquire into those between £15 and £30, and a great deal of time would be wasted if they had to inquire into holdings of £2, £3, and £5 a-year. Such a proposal came, he thought, very naturally from an hon. Member for a constituency in which there were many thousands of email tenants of this kind. If the Commissioners' work was limited by restricting their operations to tenants over a certain amount, a great deal of time would be saved. As to whether the limit should be £10 or £15, ho placed himself entirely in the hands of the Government.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "if," to insert the words, "if the holding be over the value of £15, and."—(Colonel Nolan.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GLADSTONEI am not able to accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member. In the first place, if a line is to be drawn, it ought to be a line very consider ably below £l5; but, in the second place, drawing a line is not in our view consistent with the form we have given to the proposal. If we draw a line, then I think the correlative of that will be above that line the Commissioners shall absolutely take the tenant right into consideration. We have proceeded on the principle of discretion, and I do not think it would be right, or fair, or consistent with the spirit of the proposal we have made, to accede to the Amendment.
§ MR. PARNELLagreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) that, to a great extent, the Amendment would facilitate the proceedings of the Commission, and that in all probability the adjustment of matters in the case of small tenants would proceed very much more rapidly; but still he appreciated to the fullest extent the objection of the Prime Minister. But if a line was fixed in the Bill, the tendency would be almost irresistible to the Commission to consider that they were im- 376 pliedly directed to take into consideration the tenant right in a small holding. Therefore, as the principle of leaving a discretion to the Commissioners had been carried, he thought the Amendment had better be withdrawn.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Amendment agreed to.
§
MR. PARNELL moved to insert a sub-section, providing that—
This section shall apply equally whether the landlord has or has not recovered any judgment or decree for the rent payable in respect of the year expiring aforesaid or for such antecedent arrears of rent, or any portion of same, which said judgment or decree is unsatisfied wholly or in part at the date of any application under this section, or any judgment or decree in ejectment for non-payment of such rent, or any portion of same, which said judgment or decree is unenforced by actual eviction at the date of any application under this section; and, where any such judgment or decree has been recovered, and the landlord is entitled to levy against the tenant any costs or expenses in respect of same, the Land Commission in making any order under this section for the payment of any sum to the landlord may also make an order for the payment to or for the benefit of the landlord of such sum in respect of such costs and expenses as aforesaid as the Land Commission, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, may think just; and, on such order being made, the landlord's right to such costs and expenses shall be released and extinguished.
This section, the hon. Member explained, provided first of all that the Court should not be interfered with because the landlord had an action pending against a tenant for ejectment, or for the rent paid in respect to arrear, or for such antecedent arrears of rent, provided that the judgment was unsatisfied. It provided for the want he had pointed out—namely, that the Commission could not stay proceedings which were actually going on; and it also provided for the payment of costs to the landlord by the Land Commission. This was a very important matter in regard to smaller tenants. A very large number of decrees had been obtained in the North and West of Ireland, particularly since this Bill had been introduced; and although those decrees had not been enforced up to the present time, they might be enforced, and the costs would be recoverable by the landlord in respect to them. In these cases the tenants were exceedingly poor, and it would be a very great hardship to them, and tended very much to destroy the efficiency of this
377
Bill, if the landlord retained his right to recover from these tenants the costs after the Court had decided that they were unable to pay their rent. The sum required would not be very large, and he did not suppose it would increase the amount to be provided under this Bill by more than £75,000 or £85,000. That would be comparatively a small amount, whereas it would be an immense boon to those smaller tenants if they were relieved from liability for costs, and it would also be a boon to the landlords, because, as he understood the Bill, they would not be able to recover costs by ejectment, but would be left to the ordinary remedy of selling a tenant's interest or distraining upon his stock. They would not be able to recover by ejectment, and it might happen that the question of costs being left open might prove a source of irritation between the parties. If this question regarding antecedent arrears was to be settled satisfactorily, it was desirable there should be no payment for rent outstanding.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 5, after the word "extinguished," to insert the following sub-section:—"This section shall apply equally whether the landlord has or has not recovered any judgment or decree for the rent payable in respect of the year expiring aforesaid or for such antecedent arrears of rent, or any portion of same, which said judgment or decree is unsatisfied wholly or in part at the date of any application under this section, or any judgment or decree in ejectment for non-payment of such rent, or any portion of same, which said judgment or decree is unenforced by actual eviction at the date of any application under this section; and, where any such judgment or decree has been recovered, and the landlord is entitled to levy against the tenant any costs or expenses in respect of same, the Land Commission in making any order under this section for the payment of any sum to the landlord may also make an order for the payment to or for the benefit of the landlord of such sum in respect of such costs and expenses as aforesaid as the Land Commission, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, may think just; and, on such order being made, the landlord's right to such costs and expenses shall ho released and extinguished."—(Mr. Parnell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, as the hon. Member had pointed out, this Amendment was in two parts. As to the first part, that had been accepted 378 by the Committee in principle, and on Report the Government would consider whether it should be added to the Bill as a clause. The second portion of the Amendment was one really of finance, and the Committee would recollect that he had guarded himself when speaking of the hon. Member for Monaghan's (Mr. Givan's) Amendment with reference to the costs of the landlords. That was a matter of finance, and the burden which the State had already undertaken was so large that the Government could not undertake to pay costs.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he thought it would be of great advantage if the Land Commission were empowered—if it seemed desirable for the general peace and quietness of the country—to advance at least a certain portion of the costs. The Government were in this matter in a position of some difficulty; but, between now and Report, they would have time to consider the matter. He hoped they would give some expression of view upon the point.
MR. GORSTrose to a point of Order, and asked whether the latter part of this Amendment could be put, as it empowered the Land Commission to make a payment of certain sums to the landlord? If that order was made, then, under Sub section 7 of the Act, it would be charged primarily on the Irish Church Fund, but, subject thereto, on the Consolidated Fund; and the Attorney General for Ireland had already said that, inasmuch as there was a financial charge on the Consolidated Fund, he could not entertain the Amendment. If that answer was right, then, according to the Rules of the House, the Amendment could not be put.
THE CHAIRMANIt is quite within the instruction of the House to the Committee to be very wide as to the manner in which the Consolidated Fund may be taken or carried out under this Act.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had expressly stated that the Government had accepted an arrangement, and would bring up a proposal on Report.
§ MR. GIBSONthought that, with reference to the point of the Amendment as to the charge, it would be found that the Exchequer Clause of this Bill only said any payment with reference to arrears should be primarily charged on the Irish Church Fund, and subject thereto on the 379 Consolidated Fund. That would not, however, extend to the power of making payments to officials employed under the Act. It was not with reference to arrears, but to costs incurred through legal process on the part of the landlord.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the difficulty was that this proposal introduced what was an entire novelty in official proceedings. He had never heard of any case in which the Government had borne the costs of both litigants, and the novelty was so great that he thought the Amendment had better stand over.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment; but he did not think any money could be bettor spent by the Government than in carrying out the object of his Amendment. The desire of the Government was to restore law and order in Ireland. He did not know that it was the desire of certain hon. Members on the opposite side, for in watching their proceedings in this Committee he had been frequently tempted to think that they desired to throw every obstruction in the way of this measure. The expenditure of this money would be a very small matter; and he pointed out that by the alteration in principle which had been adopted, giving power to the Commissioners to take the tenant right into account—undoubtedly a very considerable amount of money, which would otherwise be met under this section—would be saved to the Imperial Exchequer. It was extremely probable that, owing to the introduction of that Amendment, no demand would be made on the Imperial Exchequer, but only on the Church Fund, and that anything the Imperial Exchequer would have to advance would be in the shape of loan, and not of gift. Under these circumstances, he was induced to press this Amendment on the consideration of the Government before Report. There were a number of cases in Ireland of small holdings from which the tenants had been sold out, and it would be a great hardship to these people to be deprived of the benefits of this Bill owing to the costs. He would ask the Government to reconsider this matter carefully before Report, and see if they could not meet him in this way. He wished also to ask the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland to a special matter—he found that this Amendment did not provide for the point to which he had drawn attention, and 380 he hoped the Attorney General for Ireland would introduce in the new clause he intended to bring up a provision that proceedings, as regards the execution of decrees, might be stayed by the Commissioners.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he thought it would be an unfortunate thing if that suggestion was not adopted. If the costs were left hanging round the necks of the tenants one of two things must occur. These costs were secured by judgment—perhaps by ejectment. If the judgment remained in force, and it would until the costs were satisfied, then would arise a technical difficulty which would have to be met in regard to the costs; but if he was wrong in that, and the judgment for ejectment was not preserved by reason of the non-payment of costs, still the costs would remain as a weight round the necks of the tenants; and in those cases where the landlord had proceeded in a Superior Court, it was perfectly certain. at least in many cases, that the costs of ejectment or of the proceedings in a Superior Court would be quite equal to a year's rent, and perhaps more. Unless this difficulty was met there would be many cases of hardship.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he thought it would not be right for him to let the Committee labour under the impression that the Bill would accomplish much for the small tenants in the West of Ireland. If they were reinstated tomorrow, and received a year's rent, they would be overwhelmed by the legal costs incurred in consequence of ejectment. Therefore it would be idle to allow the Committee to believe that the Bill would touch the difficulty in regard to those tenants. The Committee must realize that there were two Irelands—a pauper Ireland, which must be dealt with as paupers were dealt with; and another portion, which could be dealt with under this Bill, where the people had the means of subsisting if only left in their own homes.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he felt very deeply with reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), that there would be no doubt that the Bill would fail wholly and completely to meet the necessities of those who, above all others, needed assistance. There were hundreds and thousands of tenants in the West of Ireland to whom this Bill would be no re- 381 lief or assistance whatever; they would remain in the most complete state of destitution, without the possibility of relief under the Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he had an Amendment to propose of considerable importance, and one which he hoped the Government would consider with a view to arriving at something like an understanding. It was an instruction in regard to the working of the Bill. He had already referred to this question on two occasions, and, it might be, a little prematurely; but he thought it fair to give the fullest information to the Government. It was now clear that one of the preliminary conditions to be satisfied was that the rent payable for the year 1881 terminating on the last gale day was to be paid. That was a perfectly clear requirement, and anyone could understand it. But he proposed, when Sub-section 3 was reached, to omit the whole of the sub-section, because, in his opinion, that sub-section so confused the matter that it was impossible to work out anything like the intention he should like to attribute to the Government. That sub-section said that—
All payments on account of rent made by the tenant to the landlord in or subsequent to the year expiring as aforesaid, shall ho deemed to have been made on account of the rent payable in respect of that year.He would take two cases. The Government had said they meant the tenant who was to get the benefit of this Bill should satisfy the condition of having paid the rent due in 1881; but this sub-section said something that might be entirely different, and it said this construction was not only possible, but necessary—the tenant and the landlord might have agreed with reference to the arrears for 1880, and if that was paid in the year 1881, the landlord would be satisfied, and would take it on certain terms. Instead of asking the whole, he would take it with a very large reduction—perhaps as large as 50 per cent—and under this section, if the landlord, after the last gale day in 1881, agreed with the tenant that the whole arrears up to 1881 should then be satisfied by the payment of 50 per cent, and the landlord undertook in that case to remit 382 the other 50 per cent, and a receipt passed between them describing that transaction; if that was the clear understanding between the parties, without any pressure either one way or the other, that payment and remission would, under the operation of the sub-section, be violently removed from 1880, and placed to the credit of 1881. Surely that could not be intended. That was construction No. 1. He asked the attention of the Government very clearly to this matter. In order to make this Bill apply at all, there must be an antecedent arrear of 1881, and it would not do for the tenant to owe the year 1881 and subsequent gales. Under the operation of this clause there might be such a transfer and appropriation of payment that an artificial arrear would be created, and the Act would be applied whether the Government liked it or not. The payment that had been made after the last gale of 1881 in respect of the whole year 1880 might, by this section, be violently transferred to 1881. The parties might fix the arrangement in 1880; but the Bill fixed it in 1881, and that would leave 1880 unsettled, and so create an artificial arrear. If this sub-section stood, it would create a vast number of artificial arrears, and increase the liabilities of the tenants in a way not anticipated. He hoped he had shown the obvious difficulties that arose on this position, and, in order to get rid of them, he proposed to omit the whole section. Take the case of the hanging gale, which existed in some of the best-managed properties in Ireland, which the reprinted Bill attempted to deal with in a most curious and ambiguous way. He did not at present see what object was gained or served by retaining this subsection in the clause. As this measure was drafted, it would be possible to create artificial arrears for the purpose of bringing parties under the operation of the Bill, although, substantially, there would be no valid arrears to justify such action. As to Sub-section 4, it stated—A remission by the landlord of the whole or any part of the rent payable in respect of the year expiring- as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be a satisfaction of the amount of rent so remitted.He assumed that the policy of the Government in reference to requiring this 383 payment for 1881 was a two-fold one—first, in order to be satisfied that they were not relieving a tenant absolutely a pauper; and in hopes, he dared say, to elicit the fact that the tenant had been one who had, in spite of the political condition of Ireland, had the courage and honesty to pay a year's rent. Ho was disposed to think. assuming that these were the views of the Government, that they had not chosen the wisest way to carry them out. It would have been wiser and more simple to have said that the payment of any year's rent within the last two years would he enough, without going into this confusion of accounts. He had not been aware that the Amendment would come on to-night, otherwise he would have endeavoured to shorten his remarks; but he hoped he had said enough to show the Government the difficulties which had passed through his mind, and that in moving the rejection of the sub-section ho had done so on account merely of the difficulties the provision presented.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, to leave out sub-section 3.—[Mr. Gibson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he rose with some diffidence to reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, not having been able to follow him through all the technical points ho had discussed. He (Mr. Childers) had endeavoured to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and believed he had succeeded in discovering that, minutely as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had gone into the matter, he had not quite grasped the full extent of the argument in favour of the provision. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not observed was that the Bill assumed that the tenant was unable to make any payment before the one year's payment in respect of 1881. That was the assumption with which they started, and which underlay the whole object of the clause. Then the clause said that if the tenant had paid at the proper time a year's rent in respect of 1881, then, the other conditions of the Bill having been satisfied, he should be entitled to have the relief afforded by the Bill. The right hon. 384 and learned Gentleman had put two or three difficult and exceptional cases, and had asked them how they proposed to apply their principle? Some of them he might pass lightly over, because they wore met by the Proviso at the end of the clause, which was to the effect that if the payment was made at the customary time of credit it should be held to be a payment for the year. If ho understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman's main objection, it was this—that if the tenant paid during the term of credit for the rental of 1881 certain sums which wore on account of the previous year, and as to which the landlord had made some remission, that would not be complying with the conditions of the Bill, which said that the tenant must make a payment in respect of the year 1881, either the full amount of the rent of that year or such sum as the landlord took in satisfaction of that year. On this ground the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the sub-section did not fully carry out the intention of the Government. He (Mr. Childers) was bound to say that in one respect the right hon. and learned Gentleman was right. It was intended to provide that the tenant should pay in respect of the year 1881 the full amount required by the landlord—that was to say, either the entire rent, or such sum as the landlord accepted as the entire rent, or if ho made payment in respect of the previous year. It seemed to him that in the case described the condition for the full amount of a year's rent would not have been satisfied; and though he (Mr. Childers) did not see that the words in the clause were insufficient—for they seemed to him exactly to carry out the intentions of the Government in this matter—yet, if they did not, the Government would be prepared to introduce some words into the clause at a later stage to carry out the desired object. This was an extremely difficult section, and the Bill had been altered in this respect, when committed pro formâ, because the Government were most anxious to express their intentions beyond the possibility of a doubt. The object was, assuming that the tenant could not make any payment beyond that for the year 1881, if a full year's rent for that year was paid and accepted 385 by the landlord, the conditions were fairly satisfied, and the tenant was entitled to relief. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that was not the point; but as to the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to the failure of the clause, he (Mr. Childers) had promised him that if it were shown that the words proposed did not fulfil the meaning of the Government, other words should be brought forward which would.
§ MR. GIBSONWould not the payment for 1880 be at once transferred to 1881?
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that was the intention of the clause. He (Mr. Childers) did not pretend to be able to argue with the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the drafting of the clause; but he maintained that the clause carried out the intentions of the Government, and they must adhere to it.
MR. GORSTsaid, that if the Government would look carefully at the clause they would see that it did in many cases create an artificial arrear, and this was a point he had tried to enforce when the Bill was read a second time. Let them take a case in which the rent had always been punctually paid, on which there were no arrears at all. He would not take the case of a hanging gale, but a case where, from time immemorial, the rent had been punctually paid. Supposing in 1880 the landlord, knowing that the tenant had been pressed by bad years, had allowed him to remain a short time in arrear—not in a customary arrear, but had allowed the rent which should have been paid in November, 1880, to run over to 1881—that arrear would, by the clause as it stood, be forcibly applied to the rent of 1881, so that the rent of 1880 would be half-a-year in arrear. In that way they would have created an artifical half-year's arrear, and might charge the Consolidated Fund with three months' rent on an estate in connection with which there had never been any real arrears at all. He challenged the Solicitor General for Ireland, who was the only man who had been listening to him, to say that he was not correct in supposing such a case possible.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANconfessed that, of all the sub-sections of the Bill, this subsection was the most confusing. He had 386 read it over and over again, and yet he found it confusing, and he could not but think that the draftsman had had in view the common practice on several of the estates in Ireland, which was to keep the tenant always in arrear, to give him always a receipt on account, and never a final receipt. The tenants on these estates never knew how they stood, but had been getting receipts on account for the past 10 or 15 years, and it was to meet such cases that this subsection had been put in. If the tenant got a final receipt up to a certain date, he (Mr. O'Sullivan) was sure this subsection was not wanted here.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), said, that if the policy and intention of the clause was clearly understood, it would be seen that its wording was plain enough. It was necessary to understand first the intention of the clause. The policy of the Bill was that every tenant should have a clear discharge from arrears up to the end of the year 1881. The conditions precedent to getting the benefit of the Act were that he must have satisfied the entire of the rent for the whole of the year 1881, either by payment in full, or by such arrangement as the landlord agreed to. It was intended to strike at the system of arrears; it was intended that, in wiping out all rent up to and including the last gale day of 1881, there should be a complete and clear acquittance of everything, and that the rent of 1881 should be paid for out of the year 1881, so far as it was possible to do it. On most of the estates in a particular portion of the country there had been a practice of keeping alive arrears—often large and fictitious arrears—arrears that no one ever expected to be paid, but which were kept alive for certain purposes. It was intended that that system, so far as State money was concerned, should be entirely put an end to, and that in every case where State money was advanced the tenant should start fresh in 1881. They were dealing with tenants only able to pay one year's rent, and no more; and to accomplish their intention it was considered that no tenant should be excluded from the benefit of the Act if, in the course of the year 1881, he had paid the rent which in the ordinary course, if he had not been in arrears, would be as- 387 sumed to be paid for the year 1881. Not to complicate the matter with the question of the hanging gale in the case of a tenancy regulated by the ordinary rule, if, after May 1881, a half-year's rent was paid, that was to be accepted, under this Bill, as the May rent of 1881, even though the tenant might have had three or four years' arrears debited to him in the rent-book. If the rent was paid at such a period in the year 1881 that, if the tenant had not been in arrear, it would have been credited to the year 1881, it was intended that it should be so under this Bill. The second portion of the clause, which had been commented on as obscure, was intended to meet another class of cases. The Government had assumed that it was not the intention of the tenant to pay his rent in advance; accordingly, the payment of the rent in 1881 before it was duo was not put down to the 1881 vent. This was not a now policy; it was carrying out, so far as circumstances would permit, the policy of the Land Act and the Loan Clauses of the Land Act, which provided that, if there was a voluntary agreement between the landlord and the tenant, the payment of the rent should correspond with the rent of 1881 under the Bill.
§ MR. GIBSONWhere is the agreement here?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, there was none. This was to be a compulsory clause. Take the case of the tenant who owed three years' rent. He paid in 1881 sufficient to cover one year's rent. It was paid in the ordinary way in the rent office; but the tenant knew right well that, if it were not for this Act, that payment would be credited on the estate books, not for 1881, but for 1879 or 1878. Though the tenant knew that he had the money on the understanding that it would be so paid, it was intended by this clause that it should be attributed to the year 1881, provided that the man was in a position to show that he could not pay any more. If he could not pay any more, then only he was to have the benefit of the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had pointed out by two illustrations cases in which it was possible, under this Bill, that what he had called an artificial arrear should be 388 created, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had illustrated the matter. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) was not there to say that there might not be cases in which, if the other conditions of the Bill operated, there might not be what the right hon. and learned Gentleman called an artificial arrear. He did not see that such cases would be at all likely to arise under the circumstances the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had mentioned, for in the case of the tenant who had always been regular in his payments, and had never been in arrear but on one occasion, and then only to the extent of one six-monthly payment, it was hard to think what tribunal would come to the conclusion that he was unable to pay. But he could conceive it might occur that the man who otherwise would only have paid his rent for 1880, and who was in arrear and unable to pay in 1881, he might get the benefit of the Bill. It had been pointed out, in dealing with this matter of finance, that in a very much larger number of cases the operation of this clause would be freely accepted. The case put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) was a case in which a tenant had paid in the year 1880 a sum of money under a distinct and positive agreement which was to go towards the wiping off of the debt of 1880. Take the case of a man who had made a bargain to pay £10 to clear off his rent. Now, they came to 1881, and he quite admitted that it would not only be unjust and improper, and contrary to the wording of the section, that a man should get credited as against the 1881 rent for any more than the actual amount of cash he paid. That was never for a moment intended, and if it could be pointed out that there was such a difficulty in this clause, the Government would be quite willing to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson). There was nothing in Sub-section 3 which had in the slightest degree any tendency towards such a result. The whole Act was to a certain extent arbitrary, and whilst that, to a certain extent, was an arbitrary clause, it must be borne in mind that it only applied in cases where there was inability to pay. Sub-section 4 only applied to the transactions of 1881. If 389 arrangements had been made with regard to the years 1877, 1878, 1879, or 1880, or for any other year, by which the landlord had given up a portion of his claim, that arrangement was to hold good. The landlord, however, was not bound to transfer the arrangement he made for 1880 to 1881. Then, again, the sub-section dealt with a case in which the tenant was not able to come within the Act, because he was not able to pay the entire rent for 1881. It would be for the mutual benefit, as regarded the 1881 rent, that the tenant should be placed in the same position as if he had paid the rent in full. The subsection was not to have any effect in drawing down for 1881 an arrangement intended for another year. That was the object and scope and intention of the clause. It might be right, or it might be wrong, that there should be an arrangement of that kind under the sanction of the Legislature; but if they once conceded that that was the policy and intention which the House should carry out, it seemed to him the language of the clause effected that purpose as simply as it was possible.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that anyone who had listened to the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who was one of the ablest lawyers in Ireland, must arrive at this conclusion, that if this provision were retained, the object of the clause was not likely to be attained—namely, that the clause should apply to the poorest and most ignorant occupiers in Ireland. He would ask anyone who had not had a legal training to explain what was the object of this sub-section? He raised the point on the Motion for going into Committee on the Bill, and he could not understand why the Government, their object being perfectly clear, did not make Sub-section (a) complete in itself, which they could easily do on Re-port. What the Government wished to do, he understood, was this. They wanted the tenant to pay a year's rent, or the equivalent thereof, and that the rent so paid should be credited to the year 1881, whether it belonged or not to that year. If so, why not state it, and if they stated it in the 1st sub-section, then let them say that that obligation must be fulfilled by a certain date. If they were to add the words "November, 1882," to 390 the 1st sub-section, the matter would be perfectly clear—that was to say, that the rent for 1881 must be satisfied by November, 1882. They would then get rid of Sub-section 3, and all its complications. There was another advantage in putting in some date by which these payments must be effected. Ho called attention before, and he must do so again, to the fact that there was nothing in this Act to force payment of rent until the tenant's case came before the Court for adjudication. Now, a particular case might not come before the Court till the year 1884, and in the meantime what was the landlord to do? The Treasury Bench said he was to have recourse to his ordinary power—that was to say, he was to evict. It seemed that if they wished this Bill to be a summary Bill, it would be by a provision by which the payment of the rent must be made and accepted by the landlord by a certain date. In that case they would get rid of all the complications; the tenant would have fulfilled his obligation by a certain date, and the landlord would have no need to have recourse to the unpleasant process of serving notices to quit.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, those were narrow conclusions, and did not involve any principle. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had opened a point with regard to which they were perfectly agreed. That was to say, that if the landlord had received payment in 1881 which he had taken on account of rent in 1879, and if in consideration of the bad season of 1879 the landlord had made considerable remissions from that payment, it would be most grossly unfair that that payment should be put down in full for 1881. The object that the Government had in view was to counteract the injurious action of a defective system prevailing upon many of those Irish estates where there were heavy arrears, and where payments, really arising out of the year 1881 and made in the year 1881, were in point of fact, by the custom of the estate, put down to a former and perhaps remote year. The noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) raised for the third time the question of the possible long delay before the cases could come for adjudication, and then he suggested that 391 some date should be fixed. That was a suggestion which the Government were willing to consider, and they would endeavour, if they could, to fix upon some arrangement which would meet the objection which the noble Lord had stated.
§ COLONEL COLTHURSTwished that the Solicitor General for Ireland would answer a question with respect to the hanging gale. As he regarded the Bill, a tenant who had paid a year's rent before May, 1882, would have to pay another six months' rent before he could enjoy the benefits of the Bill; whereas, if a tenant had retained his rent until after May, 1882, he would get a discharge for 1881 by paying 12 months' rent? It was a very intricate point, and he should be glad to find he was mistaken.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not propose to trouble the Committee by going to a division. The Government had stated that they were willing to concede one point he had raised. He would not, however, withdraw the Amendment, but allow it to be negatived. He was not satisfied with the objects of the Bill which the Government stated would be carried out by this section, and he believed his difficulties had not been met.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the sub-section which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to proposed to place the tenant who had disobeyed the "no rent" manifesto on an equal footing with the tenant who had not.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. PARNELL, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), proposed to leave out, in page 2, line 10, from "provided," to "due," in line 16, inclusive. The words proposed to be left out formed a provision which the Government inserted in the Bill after it was committed pro formâ.It was a provision which made a very material alteration in the clause, and an alteration very materially disadvantageous to the tenant. Now, as the Bill originally stood, it gave to the tenant credit in respect of the year expiring November, 1881, for any payment made within that year, that any payment made in that year should be taken as having been paid in the year expiring 1881. By the insertion of this Proviso in the sub- 392 section, this was brought about—that where, according to the custom of an estate, it was the custom to make a payment in respect of any year six months after gale day, the tenant would be at a decided loss of six months in his reckoning. For instance, if the payment was made by a tenant in 1881—they would suppose on the 1st day of November, 1881, for the gale days were in May and November—if the payment was made of six months' rent on the 1st day of November, 1881—and it was the custom of the estate to take a gale day due May in November—and he got a receipt for it, the tenant would lose his right to credit himself with that six months' payment in 1881. He (Mr. Parnell) submitted that this was a disadvantage effected by this Proviso. He also wanted to ask the Government a question as to the meaning of this Proviso. Did it apply to the whole section, or did it only apply to the sub-section? He noticed that in the Proviso which he proposed to omit it was said—
The usual day of payment shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to be the time at which the rent accrued due.If it was intended that this Proviso should apply to the whole section, it appeared to him that it would make a very material alteration in the section to the disadvantage of the tenant, for the tenant would lose six months as regarded the settlement of 1881. He did not know if he had made his point very clear, and he regretted the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was not present, because he had made this matter his special study. As, however, the hon. Member had now returned to his place, he would leave the matter in his hands.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 10, to leave out from the word "provided," to the word "due," in line 16, inclusive.—(Mr. Parnell.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)pointed out that the arrangement between landlord and tenant in Ireland had always been that there should be six months' grace, and that, accordingly, the half-year's rent due in November would be paid in the following May. 393 The object of this Proviso was simply to substitute the customary gale day.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that this was indeed a most intricate matter, and it was exceedingly difficult to make oneself clear to the Committee. He had to complain that a provision of this character, and so involved that it was almost impossible to understand it, and which was not in the original Bill at all, should now be placed in the Bill by the Government, owing, as he was sorry to think, to the undue influence brought to bear upon the Government by certain members of the landlord section. He regretted that he had to make the charge; but it was a most remarkable thing that the Proviso which was contained in the lines from 10 to 15 of this sub-section did not originally stand in the Bill, and that when the Committee assented in good faith to the Bill being committed pro formâ, they should afterwards find the Government taking advantage of the pro formâ arrangement, and project in the Bill a provision which did not exist in it originally, and which was introduced simply to give Lord Kenmare and Lord Lansdowne, and a few other friends of the Government, and one of them a Member of the Government, the benefits of their hanging gale. He was sorry the Committee bad not the advantage of the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), a Gentleman who so thoroughly exposed the wretched principle of the hanging gale on the estates of Lord Lansdowne, and he (Mr. Healy) believed also on that of Lord Kenmare. Notwithstanding the exposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Government introduced into this Bill a Proviso which did not exist originally, and they had now put it forward without the smallest explanation. It would be necessary for him (Mr. Healy) to go a little into this matter; and what he would point out was this, that this provision actually made the tenant pay a half-year's rent, which, as the Bill originally stood, he would not have been called upon to pay at all. He defied the Attorney General for Ireland to say that the effect was not that the tenant would have to pay in November, 1882, the gale nominally due in November, 1881; whereas, as the Bill originally stood, he would not have had to pay it. Sub-section 3 had been objected to by the right hon. and learned 394 Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), and be (Mr. Healy) would only say, with regard to the objection of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that it was no stronger than his; but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would allow the original lines to stand, there would be no need for his (Mr. Healy's) present Amendment. The introduction of this Proviso projected into the year 1882 a half-year's gale, which the tenant nominally was owing, but which, in point of practice, was not due. If the words proposed to be left out were not in the sub-section, what would happen would be, that the tenant would be released on the payment of his year's rent for 1881—that was, an actual year's rent. Anyone who knew the practice in Ireland knew that this hanging gale was simply an instrument of torture. A man going into a farm on the 13th of July would, as a matter of fact, go in owing one year's rent. If a farm were taken from Lord Kenmare to-day, the tenant would go into it with a year's rent due. That was a most anomalous state of things, and yet, to give the benefit of the hanging gale to Lord Kenmare and other Members of the Whig Party, the Government bad introduced the words of this sub-section. He deeply regretted the Government had taken this step. If they had not taken it for the purpose of giving the Whig landlords the benefits of this fictitious hanging gale, he could not understand why these words were inserted. He bad always understood that what was wanted by the Government was that the actual rent up to 1881 should be paid or satisfied before a tenant could receive the benefits of the Act. What bad the Government to do with artificial arrangements existing between landlord and tenant? On the ground of policy, what had the Committee to do with arrangements of a private character existing between landlord and tenant? The rent due in 1880, as a matter of fact, would not be dealt with by this Bill, because the Government, by this system of hanging gale, had projected November, 1880, into March, 1881, and they tried to transpose November, 1881, into 1882; so that, as a matter of fact, the landlord gained the advantage of the hanging gale. He must admit that the matter was so intricate that it was almost impossible for 395 anyone to understand it, and the Government had the Committee to a certain extent in their hands. Ho trusted that the Government would admit that the introduction of this Proviso was a great mistake.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had taken great interest in this subject; but he (Mr. Childers) must deny that the Government had been actuated by the motives attributed to them by the hon. Gentleman. The hanging gale was one of those unfortunate institutions which a great many people, including Irish landlords, would like to see abolished, if the management of the estates in Ireland were to be put upon a better footing. There was not the smallest foundation for the impression that the difference between the clause as originally drafted and as it appeared now was duo to the circumstances of either one estate or any number of estates in Ireland. What happened was this—when the clause was drafted the meaning of the Government was that the payment should be made on the customary day, and the words "accrued due" were supposed by the Government to have that effect; but afterwards, when they looked into the Bill more carefully, it became quite clear that the words "accrued due" were not sufficient. The Government wished to bring the law in consonance with the practice and cusoms of the country,
§ MR. SYNANsaid, he thought there could be no doubt that the mode in which the Bill had been drafted had given rise to the objection of the hon. Member for Wexford. As this Bill was originally drafted, any payment made from the 1st of January, 1881, to the 1st of May, 1881, would go in discharge for the rent of 1881. This Proviso was brought in to protect the rights of the landlord; but it would prejudice the rights of the tenant. The object of the Bill was to get rid of arrears caused by distress and bad seasons; and as it was originally drafted, in his opinion, the intention was that the tenant should pay rent for 1881, and that any payment made from the 1st of January to the 1st of November, or to the 1st of January the next year, would go in discharge of rent for 1881. This Proviso would, however, defeat that object, and would prejudice the tenant by imposing upon him six 396 months' rent, and, therefore, he thought his hon. Friend had a right to complain that the tenant was so prejudiced; but he would not say whether that was with any objector not. Ho admitted that on a great many estates in Ireland the custom of hanging gale did exist, and he thought it would be well if the circumstances of the country allowed that custom to be put an end to. He was afraid, however, that that could not be; but here was a Proviso bringing in the hanging gale to the prejudice of the tenant, who now would have to pay a year and a-half's rent. Therefore, the tenant was prejudiced; and it was for the Government to consider whether they would restore the Bill to its original position, and so save the tenant, and throw all prior payments into antecedent arrears. They could do that if they wished; and if they did they would make the Bill consistent with its original object, which was to protect the tenant and relieve him from antecedent arrears.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he was very glad to hear the explanation from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers), because it showed the intention was to save the hanging gale to the landlords. That was a course to which he most strenuously objected; and he thought the Government ought not to have introduced such a proposal pro formâ, and, without doubt, notice should have been inserted in the Bill in such a way that he who ran might read, and not have boon left to be drawn from the Government at that late hour of the night, when it was impossible for Members to decide upon their action. The effect of the Proviso was that a tenant who should have obtained protection and a clear receipt for rent up to November, 1881, by paying his rent, would now have to pay a year and a-half's rent in order to get the same protection and receipt. That was a very important change in the Bill, and one which diminished its utility immensely; for whereas the Bill proposed a free acquittance to the tenant who had paid one year's rent and satisfied the Court that he was unable to pay antecedent arrears, this Proviso would require the tenant to pay one and a-half year's rent in order to get that protection. The Bill would fail in protecting tenants if this Proviso was inserted. Just where the tenant wanted protection he would not get it, and 397 instead of being clear of all liability tip to November, 1881, be would only find himself clear up to May, 1881. Under all these circumstances, and in order to give Members time to consider what course they would take, and what Amendments they would propose, he would move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Parnell.)
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped the Committee would consent to finish the discussion upon this subject. It had been discussed at great length, and he bad fully explained that the clause, as it now stood, was as it was always intended to be.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought that Irish Members must ask the Government to take further time for the consideration of this section. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) had stated that the intention of the Government was to clear the tenant from November, 1881, as the result of paying two gales. That would have been plain if the sub-section had been allowed to remain as it was originally introduced; and he thought there was reason to complain of what amounted to a breach of good faith in regard to this subsection, for it seriously altered the form of the Bill. Unquestionably, the poorer tenants would be in this position—having paid two half-years' rent in 1881, they might be told that they had not paid up to March, 1881, and, in consequence of that, they could not go before the Court. The Prime Minister had described this as an Act not to be governed by strict rules of political economy; but, unless the Government wished to shut out a large number of the most needy people from the benefits of the Bill, they would do away with this monstrous provision of a hanging gale. Considering how the law had been used by the landlords, and that this Bill was intended to modify the evils of that law, it was better to say that a provision of that kind was an effort to maintain the consonance of the law. This was a sop to the landlords, and a device by which the poor tenants would be compelled to pay 18 months' rent.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought it rather remarkable that, 398 after all that had been said against the Conservative Party for obstructing Business, Progress should now be moved by Irish Members in a manner not likely to promote the early passing of the Bill. As he had one or two Amendments on the Paper, he should be glad if the Government would go on with this sub-section a little further; but if there was to be a further discussion, or a prolonged wrangle, the Committee ought not to be asked to take any further Government Business this evening.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, be wished to put to the Solicitor General for Ireland a case in which a tenant had paid £20 in May, and £20 in November, 1881, and £20 in May, 1882, and asked whether those three payments under this clause would not be credited to 1881? If so, they were justified in saying that that tenant would have to pay three gales, and not only a year.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, it was never intended to assume that the tenant was paying rent in advance; accordingly, the Government attributed to 1881 all payments which, in the ordinary course, might have been ascribed to that year, but it was never intended to apply to 1881 payments which were made in advance.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was rather surprised at this new-born zeal on the Front Opposition Bench to make such speedy progress, considering that hon. Gentlemen on that Bench had spoken six times as often and six times as much as all the Irish Members below the Gangway. The real point why he thought Progress ought to be reported was that the Prime Minister was not now in his place. This clause was exceedingly important on the point raised by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); but, of course, it was perfectly hopeless of him to think of outvoting the Government. All that he could hope was to convince the Government, and he might reasonably desire for the Prime Minister to be in his place, in order that he might put his views before the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, if the Government declared for the hanging gale they might as well keep their Bill. He had rejoiced at the introduction of the Bill, because it proposed to abolish the greatest engine of oppression possessed by the 399 landlords; but if the Government were not prepared to abolish the hanging gale they might as well keep their Bill, for he despised it. There was no active oppression which the landlords did not perpetrate by means of the hanging gale. If a tenant did not vote as the landlord wished, or did not send his children to the school approved of by the landlord, or did not repair or cultivate his holding in a certain way, or refused to preserve game in the way the landlord wished, all that the landlord had to do was to serve the tenant with a notice that unless he did so-and-so he must pay up the hanging gale. What was the result? The landlord was not really bound to give the customary notice to quit, and the tenant could be put out at once. There was scarcely a tenant on Lord Kenmare's estate who could not be thrown on the roadside under this system of hanging gale. The Government might pass 100 Arrears Bills; but, unless they abolished the hanging gale, they would leave the tenants at the landlord's mercy.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought that, from the way in which hon. Gentlemen spoke of the hanging gale, one might imagine that it was an imposition on the tenant, whereas it was just the other way. The hanging gale was an act of indulgence on the part of the landlords who had allowed the tenants to have the gale run in arrear. The result of this system showed the use of making concessions to the Irish peasantry.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that, so far from the gale being an indulgence, he had received a letter from a Protestant clergyman, stating that, although he took a farm in 1880, on the day he took possession he was told he was 12 months in arrear.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANdesired to give the Government some time to consider this matter, and also that Irish Members should have time to consider their course. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite had said the hanging gale was an evil institution; the Secretary of State for War had said the same, and had added that it would be a good thing for the country if the hanging gale did not exist. That was just the state of the case; but what did the Government do now? They proposed to give this evil institution a new lease of life, and a new 400 force which it had not hitherto had. It was true that this hanging gale had been used in Ireland mainly as an instrument of torture and terrorism over the tenants, and he could tell the Committee of instances in which it had been so used. Some time ago an Irish county, of which he knew something, returned to that House a Member who was not a landlord, as the previous Member had been. What did the landlord do? He was put out of the representation of the county, and in order to punish his tenants for exercising their judgment in the election of a Member he called up his hanging gale. That was his mode of punishment, and that process was for all purposes an act of vengeance; and to this process the Government now proposed to give new force and new life. The sub-section would minimize the utility of the Bill, and would take away much of its character as a Belief Bill, while it would strengthen this evil institution of the hanging gale, and in that way it was calculated to defeat the intentions with which the Government introduced the Bill.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the Secretary of State for War had stated that the tenants would only be required to pay arrears of rent. Suppose a tenant on an estate where this hanging gale existed owed three years rent up to November, 1881——
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHrose to Order, and asked whether the hon. Member, having moved to report Progress, could enter upon another discussion?
THE CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member desires to make an explanation with a view to withdrawing the Motion, that would facilitate the Business.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he should be very glad to withdraw his Motion if it was possible, although he was afraid that was not possible. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) might be able to give such a reply as would enable the Motion to be withdrawn. The case he wished to put was this—Suppose a tenant upon an estate upon which the hanging gale existed owed three years' rent up to November, 1881, he could not by the custom of the estate be called upon to pay the rent due in November, 1881, till November, 1882; that tenant might have paid nothing until now, and, on the passing of this Bill, he went into 401 Court and tendered or paid a year's rent; would that tenant be clear up to November, 1881?
§ MR. CHILDERSAccording to the words of the sub-section, if the tenant pays a year's rent he will come within the Bill.
§ MR. PARNELLWould he be entitled to get a legal receipt from his landlord or from the Court clearing him of his rent up to November, 1881?
§ MR. CHILDERSYes. That payment of a year's rent would be a payment of a year's rent within the meaning of the sub-section; there can be no question about that.
§ MR. CHILDERSIt is in the Bill.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he begged pardon—it was not in the Bill. ["Oh, oh !"] If the Tory Party did not keep quiet, the Committee had better divide. He quite understood the manœuvre of the Tory Party—they wanted to delay the Bill. They desired that, if possible, the delay should come through the Irish Members by Motions to report Progress—they desired to get the Irish Members into an entanglement with the Government, in order to be able to say by-and-bye that any Obstruction that had come to the Bill had come from the Irish Party, and that the Government had been obliged to refuse a Motion to report Progress sprung on the Committee not by the Tories, but by the Irish Members.
§ An hon. MEMBER rose to Order. The hon. Member for Wexford had already addressed the Committee.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he was afraid, if he was out of Order in addressing the Committee a second time, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had been very much out of Order in these debates. The hon. Gentleman who had called him to Order could not have been very much in the House of late, or he would know how often right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench had risen to discuss the provisions of this Bill. If the Government would make it clear that all they desired was that a year's rent should be paid to satisfy the landlord under this Bill up to November, 1881, and whether there was a hanging gale or not, the tenant should get an acquittance; that was a fair 402 and reasonable thing. If the Government would make that clear, the Irish Members would be willing to meet them; but the sub-section as it stood was by no means fair.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that if the words of the sub-section were found by the Government on further consideration to be vague, they would try to make them more clear. He must say, at present, he believed them to be perfectly clear; therefore, he asked the Committee to accept the assurance the Government had given as to the meaning of the subsection, and allow it now to be passed. If ambiguity was discovered before the Report, that ambiguity would be removed.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he was willing to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and to withdraw the Motion, which he now asked leave of the Committee to do. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman, however, that when he had put his question, and the right hon. Gentleman had answered in the affirmative, the correctness of that answer was at once disputed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson).
§ MR. CHILDERSI am bound to say that I did not hear that.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that as they had now got through the sub-section, he would move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Childers.)
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman when the Committee might expect to see on the Paper that most important subsection foreshadowed to-night in the speech of the Prime Minister?
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped it would be on the Paper to-morrow morning.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHWill it be in the shape of a sub-section or a new clause?
§ MR. CHILDERSA new clause.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.