§ Progress resumed.
§ Amendment (Mr. Healy) again proposed.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, he was alarmed by the suggestion made by the Attorney General for Ireland that the Government were inclined to consider this Amendment with some degree of favour under a possible state of circumstances, those circumstances, he understood, being an arrangement between the landlord and tenant, by which the landlord should agree that the tenant should obtain the benefits of the Bill. He (Mr. Bulwer) wanted information as to what was the meaning of the Government in throwing out the hope that they would favourably consider this Amendment under certain circumstances. What were the circum- 506 stances under which it would be possible to apply the Bill? Let them take the typical case which had been cited—that of Lord Cloncurry's tenants. He was not going to enter into the merits of that case; but there had, unquestionably, been a great deal of unmerited vituperation uttered against Lord Cloncurry. As he understood it, Lord Cloncurry's tenants had refused to pay their rents, and his Lordship had taken the legal measures he thought justifiable in order to enforce payment. He was unable to make them pay, and, therefore, he turned them out. He took from them the property which they possessed—namely, the tenant right—and sold it, and so recouped himself as far as he could. He got a portion of his rent, and, at the same time, got rid of his tenants. Supposing Lord Cloncurry had not reinstated his tenants, as he (Mr. Bulwer) was glad to believe he had done, those tenants would be in a position hereafter, if Lord Cloncurry was minded to agree with them to do so, to take the benefits of this Act. But he (Mr. Bulwer) did not see how this Bill could apply to such a case as that, for the hypothesis was that Lord Cloncurry had got rid of his tenants and had got his rents. This Bill was applicable to the case of tenants who were in arrear; but a man who had got rid of his tenants, and had used his powers to obtain his rents and had got those rents, had as much as the law would allow him to get. What possible arrangement could he make with those persons to bring them within the Act?—because the hypothesis was that they had gone, and were, consequently, strangers to him, and that they owed him no rent. There would be no arrears of rent to which this Bill would apply, and if that were so, he thought it was rather an illusory encouragement to hon. Members below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House to say that this Amendment would be favourably considered under certain circumstances. It might, perhaps, be his ignorance—["Hear, hear!"] Well, hon. Members below the Gangway were familiar with these matters, no doubt, and it might be owing to his ignorance that he failed to imagine the circumstances under which this Amendment would apply; but he certainly was at a loss to perceive how it could apply to such a case as that 507 he had suggested. He took the case of Lord Cloncurry and his tenants to give the Attorney General for Ireland an illustration of what ho meant in the application of this Amendment. He repeated, however, that he only asked for information; and, no doubt, the Solicitor General for Ireland would be able to enlighten him. It was perfectly illusory to say that the Amendment could apply to the ease of a landlord or tenant whose relations terminated, it might be, some five or six years ago, the farm having remained vacant in the hands of the landlord ever since. To say that the tenant in a case of that kind was to pay one year's rent, and the Irish Church Fund or the Consolidated Fund was to pay another year's rent for him, in order that he might regain his position as tenant, though evicted some four or five years before, was, to say the least, startling. He could not see that it was possible that this Amendment could apply where the relations of landlord and tenant had been determined by due process of law before this measure became an Act of Parliament. However, he only desired to know exactly what it was at which the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland was directed.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL TOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that what his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland proposed was to introduce into the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite the words "with the express consent of the landlord." In any case, the course of obtaining a judgment had been adopted with the same object as obtaining an ejectment—in order to enable the landlord to resume possession of the land. If at a sale the landlord bought the tenant right, he would then become the owner of the holding, and he would enter into possession. He would have a valid title against the tenant, and the tenant would be deprived of all remedy against him. Very often the landlord and the tenant treated the matter as though an ejectment for non-payment of rent had been obtained, the tenant being re-admitted as if no such transaction had taken place. What was suggested here was that the landlord, having obtained a judgment for his rent, and having issued execution, and become himself the purchaser—very often only 508 nominally—frequently reinstated the tenant on the payment of arrears, or such amount of the arrears as he saw fit. That was an arrangement that had been often carried out; and that was an arrangement to which the Committee would agree. If it should be a proper thing in the case of an ejectment for non-payment of rent, he did not see why it should not be so in the case of an arrangement between the landlord and the tenant.
§ MR. BULWERDo the arrears of rent remain due, or have they been satisfied?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, they were practically merged into the judgment debt, and if that debt had been satisfied, then the arrears of rent would no longer remain, either in form or substance. It was usually the case in purchases of this kind, when the interest of the tenant was put up for sale by the sheriff, for the landlord to become purchaser at a nominal figure. For instance, if the landlord's claim against the tenant was for £50, he might become a purchaser for £5. The debt was not paid, and he might claim the rest at any time when the tenant came into possession again. If it were not for this measure, it would be quite open to the parties to go behind the judgment and re-open the matter. The landlord could not be compelled to accept such an arrangement under this clause; but it was open to him to do so. He agreed with the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer) that if the tenant were a person perfectly able to satisfy the landlord he would not come under the Act at all. It would be necessary not only that the landlord should have obtained judgment, but that the tenant had got means to satisfy the claim. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) did not see why they should not be able to make this case precisely as if the judgment had been obtained. What was sought by this proposed Amendment was only to place the tenant in the position, with the consent of the landlord, which ho would have been in without that consent if the landlord had only pursued his other alternative course. The Government had only suggested the mode in which they thought this matter could be settled.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, he did not quite follow the hon. and learned Solicitor Gene- 509 ral for Ireland in this matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that when judgment was recovered the rent was gone, but a debt remained. If the tenant succeeded in making a fortune, the landlord might come down on him at any time for that part of the debt that was still unsatisfied; but the proposed arrangement would undo the effects of the judgment and put the sum of money due to the landlord, which was now a debt, upon a different footing. It was only on the supposition that he owed "rent" that the tenant would come under this clause and could have that rent remitted on certain conditions. He did not say that he quite understood the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument; but, as far as he could understand it, he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman had answered the difficulty he (Mr. Bulwer) had suggested.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the Amendment of the Government did not in the smallest degree meet the point he had in his mind. But it was possible that in the case of a limited number, say, of a few dozen tenants over the country, agreements might be come to with the landlord, and the suggested Amendment might be of some service. He had no option but to withdraw his Amendment, either that it might be amended hereafter, or that a new one might be brought up by the Government.
§ MR. PLUNKETsaid, that before the Amendment was withdrawn, perhaps the Committee would allow him to say a word with regard to it, because he had come in hurriedly just before the Sitting was suspended, and had not an opportunity of speaking on it. He had not yet quite grasped what the proposal was; but, as far as he understood it, the Attorney General for Ireland had resisted the Amendment that was introduced by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), but was prepared to accept it with an important modification—that was to say, he undertook to consider it before the stage of Report and bring up a clause which would carry out the views he had expressed. He (Mr. Plunket) should be very glad indeed if he could realize in any degree what it was that the Government proposed to do. The meaning of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford was quite plain. The object aimed at by 510 the suggested change, the hon. Member pointed out, was quite a different thing. The hon. Member for Wexford proposed that in these cases, where the practice had been lately resorted to by landlords which was formerly very rare indeed, and was not in the least necessary, of having recourse, in the face of the land agitation and the programme of the Land League, to the plan of proceeding against their tenants for the rent which was due at the time as a debt, and not by the ordinary and regular process of ejectment for non-payment of rent—the hon. Member proposed that in these eases the results of the action taken by the landlords should be reversed—that the tenant should compulsorily be able to upset the effects of the judgment which the landlord might have recovered, and then to put himself back into the same position as he would have been in if he had never driven the landlord to adopt the course he had followed, and to enable the tenant also to apply under this Bill to the Land Commission. Such a suggestion as this was one which should not for a moment be entertained by the Committee. It would be utterly unjust, and would confirm—consecrate almost—the proceedings of the Land League, which Parliament had been attempting during a great many months to counteract, partly by preventive measures— or preventive in the view of Her Majesty's Government—and partly by the present measure. The Attorney General for Ireland, he (Mr. Plunket) understood, said he could not accept the Amendment as proposed, but would consider whether he could not adopt it under another form. What was the change, then, that he proposed to effect in it? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that in the case where the landlord had recovered a judgment for any arrears of rent against the tenant, an execution had been issued, and the tenant's interest had been sold in the open market and purchased by the landlord, there the application of the tenant during the time for application under this Act with the express consent of the landlord might be entertained. He (Mr. Plunket) could hardly realize himself a case in which this proposal of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland could possibly be applicable. He agreed very much 511 with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer). He did not understand on what basis the Amendment was to operate. As far as he knew, these proceedings would be judgment to sell for the recovery of arrears in the eases of tenants who were well able to pay, but who for one reason or another declined to do so. Those were tenants who would not be reached at all, and who would not come under the proceedings of this Bill. Then, in the next place, it was a curious thing that when proceedings had been taken, though there might be debts still outstanding, the debt for arrears of rent would be quite independent of 1he holding of the tenant. It seemed to him (Mr. Plunket) to be an anomalous thing which was contemplated by the clause which was intended to be brought up. He failed to realize how it would do all that was intended. He might say, without pledging himself to an opinion as to what his position would be when he saw the clause as it was brought up, that if there should be any individual case—for he believed they would be very few indeed—in which the tenant had been sold up in this way when he was really unable to pay his rent; and if the result would be to put him back again in friendly relations with his landlord, in the position that he held before, and to enable him to pursue his business as a husbandman, he (Mr. Plunket) would be only too glad if some way of effacing the unfortunate relations of recent years might be discovered. He should be only too glad to see tenants who might otherwise be driven into revolt against the landlords put back in their old position. One word more, and he had done—because he wished to reserve a final opinion upon the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman until he saw it on the Paper. Reference had been made to the case of Lord Cloncurry. If ever there was a ease where misery, controversy, and disaster was brought on the tenants of an estate by a combination to refuse the payment of rent, there never was one of a more pronounced character than that of the tenants of Lord Cloncurry. He was glad to see from the newspapers of to-day—he had not seen the details, but he saw the fact stated—that the tenants had come to some arrangement with Lord Cloncurry. He (Mr. Plunket) himself thought that that Nobleman deserved 512 the greatest credit for the position he had taken up—for having taken so much trouble, and for having accepted so much odium, in refusing to be dictated to by the tenants who demanded a uniform reduction of rent. Lord Cloncurry had very properly refused that demand, although he was perfectly willing to deal with the cases of individual tenants when the people came to him and made reasonable proposals.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would suggest that the Committee should allow the Business of the House to proceed. The Government would bring up a clause on Report, and now, since they had been discussing the matter more than half-an-hour, he thought it would be well that the hon. Member should be allowed to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the effect of this Amendment had been entirely misconceived. References of a misleading character had been made to the case of Lord Cloncurry. When landlords all round him were giving large abatements of rent to all their tenants, Lord Cloncurry refused to give a penny to his tenants by way of abatement, and the result was that the tenantry had found themselves obliged to set themselves against him. His Lordship had proceeded against them, and had involved them in considerable expense in the matter of costs; and not only that, but he had forced them to sell their farms, whilst he had become the purchaser, and the tenantry had had no alternative but to allow their holdings to go to the auctioneer's hammer. The tenantry had done that, certainly in a great many cases, merely from sheer inability to pay the costs of the proceedings. The Government must see, if they wished, as they had so frequently declared it was their desire to have peace and order restored in Ireland, that a very serious element in the restoration of that peace and order would be the adoption of a plan such as this, which would enable tenants who had been deprived of their holdings, under such circumstances as those which had been referred to, to re-enter their farms.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he was quite sure that the object of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) in making his appeal to the Committee was a good one. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman's 513 object was to save time. The Government, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, were going to bring up some proposal on Report to effect the object pointed out by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), even if their Amendment were not in the same words as that of the hon. Member. Well, he (Mr. Warton) was also anxious to save the time of the Committee; but he thought the best way to do so was not to follow the suggestion of the Government, but to recommend to the Committee that, when a proposal of this sort was brought forward, the best thing they could do, instead of waiting for a proposal from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, which, when he brought it forward, they were absolutely sure would not be accepted, would be to give a clear expression of opinion that they would not adopt any clause of the kind. That would be a real saving of time. He could not let the matter pass without making his protest against the principle which had been adopted, since the division of Friday last he supposed, of proposing to reconsider the points upon which concessions were asked from them, and determining to bring up modified proposals on Report. It would be a saving at the present moment of a great deal of time if the Government would refrain from making concessions to the Party of disorder. If they would refrain from doing that, they would get all the support they desired from the Members of the Conservative Party.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to move the insertion of the following new paragraph:—
If it shall be made to appear to the Land Commission, in the case of any holding to which this Act applies, that the landlord of such holding has recovered judgment for any arrear of rent of such holding against the tenant thereof, and that, under execution issued to enforce such judgment, the tenant's interest in such holding, having been offered for sale, has been purchased by the landlord, or some person representing him, or by some third person, the Land Commission, on the application of either landlord or tenant during the time limited for applications under this Act, and whether the tenant has or has not been evicted from the holding, may, on being satisfied that such tenant has been reinstated as tenant of such holding, make an order as if, and such order shall have the same effect as if, the sale of the holding as aforesaid had not taken place.514 There was a slight similarity in the conditions of his two Amendments. Where the tenant had been put out of his holding by a sale, and the landlord had agreed to re-instate him, then, if there were any arrears hanging over the man, the Amendment would give him the benefit of the Act. If must be borne in mind that where the landlord had reinstated the tenant he had frequently made it a condition that the antecedent arrears should be paid, and a case of that kind had been brought under his notice by several tenants in the county of Limerick. It was to meet these cases that he had drawn up this Amendment. His object was to secure that, where a landlord had agreed with his tenant to re-instate him, and there were still some arrears owing, the condition of the reinstatement being that the tenant should clear off those arrears, the tenant would have a right to the advantages under this Act as if he had not been evicted. He did not see why, in such a case as that, the Government should not apply a clause of this kind.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 7, after "1860," insert as a new paragraph:—"If it shall be made to appear to the Land Commission, in the case of any holding to which thi8 Act applies, that the landlord of such holding has recovered judgment for any arrear of rent of such holding against the tenant thereof, and that, under execution issued to enforce such judgment, the tenant's interest in such holding, having been offered for sale, has been purchased by the landlord, or some person representing him, or by some third person, the Land Commission, on the application of either landlord or tenant, during the time limited for applications under this Act, and whether the tenant has or has not been evicted from the holding, may, on being satisfied that such tenant has been reinstated as tenant of such holding, make an order as if, and such order shall have the same effect as if, the sale of the holding as aforesaid had not taken place."—(Mr. Mealy.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that not from any spirit of desiring to make concessions unnecessarily, but simply because it seemed to them a matter well deserving of consideration, inasmuch as this Amendment was very much of a similar character to that which had already been proposed, and which the Government had proposed to consider, the Government would ask the hon. 515 Member to allow that proposal to stand over for Report as in the ease of the Amendment just withdrawn.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid, he thought the attention of the Committee had not been sufficiently directed to the effect of this clause. As he understood these clauses, where there had been a sale of a tenant's interest, they would put the landlord and tenant in a position to receive the benefits of the Act, although, at present, by the process they had adopted, those persons would not receive these benefits. These clauses would very much extend the money payments under the Act, and he had not thought it possible that such a proposition could be made by the Government. What would be the money cost? No doubt, it would be very great, for this was a question which was of direct interest to the landlord as well as to the tenant. It was not solely a tenant's question. When a landlord had deliberately availed himself of a legal process against his tenant, when the tenant's interest had been sold and there was no money due, was it right that, by the action of this clause, he should be put in the position he would have been in if he had not taken that legal process—namely, the position of being able to get a grant from the Government? Certainly not; and yet it was now proposed to put the landlord again in his former position—nay, he would be by these clauses put in a much better position than he was before. Though there would be some gain to the tenant, there undoubtedly would be some also to the landlord; and he (Mr. Whitley), as an English Member, protested against a money payment of this kind. He thought the principle of the Bill was entirely wrong, and that these clauses were another step in the wrong direction. The clauses would let the people see that by these means they could put themselves in the position of obtaining that which they never hoped to obtain. Ho certainly trusted that the Government would consider this matter very fully on Report, before they brought forward the clauses they had intimated they might have to propose.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Government would carefully consider the matter, and if they found that it would involve a very considerable pecuniary payment they might have to hold their hands. The opinion of the Government, 516 however, was that these cases would be very small in number. The hon. Member did not boar in mind that all the tenants in this position to obtain the benefits of the Act must have paid a year's rent, and must have been in a position of inability to pay anything else. It would be impossible for anything like collusion to take place. But all these matters would be well considered before the Report, and before the Government announced to the House the exact words of the clause they proposed. There was one point which must not be lost sight of—namely, the limit of time. It would be impossible to apply a clause of this kind to a period anterior to 1881.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, they had been given to understand that the object of this Bill was to prevent eviction; but he did not understand that any tenant who had been reinstated could be evicted. If the object of the Government was solely to prevent eviction, any Amendment of this kind would be really unnecessary. Perhaps it might be alleged that the landlord might wish to recover his debts as any other creditor would wish to do. The Government wore bringing under the provisions of the Bill a set of cases which they did not profess hitherto to have contemplated; and if the landlord was only allowed to sue for his debt and not to evict, why were they not to deal in the same way in the Bill with other creditors who might wish to sue for their debts? If they introduced provisions of this kind, and wished to provide, not merely against a case where the landlord could evict in the ordinary course, but could sue, it appeared to him that they would have to deal with a great many other creditors besides the landlord. If that was so, they ought to be very careful before they adopted clauses of this kind.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, that the Bill was introduced for the purpose of preventing evictions, and hon. Members seemed to be alarmed that every eviction which had taken place would be affected; but that was not the case. (Suppose they were introducing a Bill to prevent the spread of small-pox, preventive measures would be taken in it; but it would not be necessary to deal with every case of the disease which had occurred. If the Amendment were 517 adopted, it would remove a cause of very great heartburning.
§ DR. LYONSsaid, there were particular classes of tenants who would come under the provisions of these clauses—namely, tenants who had been practically re-instated by their landlords, and tenants who had borrowed money at exorbitant interest, and who struggled on with a mill-stone round their necks. Those landlords and tenants who had entered into friendly arrangements, the landlords having out of good feeling remitted part of the arrears, should not be deprived of the benefits of a Bill they would have had the advantage of if it had been in existence when those arrangements were entered into. There was one class of case which he thought was that which hon. Members opposite had in their minds, and which made them oppose the present proposal—namely, those who had persistently, with money in their pockets, refused to pay their rents. It should be borne in mind that all cases had to be subjected to the closest inquiry as to the ability of the tenant to pay. What it was intended to do by the new clause would restore the tenants to a condition of solvency, would enable them to go on comfortably, and would do away with ill-feeling between landlords and tenants.
THE CHAIRMANI must remind the Committee that they are discussing an Amendment which the hon. Member who moved it has been desired to withdraw.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, the position of the Committee was this—that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had withdrawn his Amendment, or proposed to withdraw it. The Government, on the understanding that the Amendment was to be withdrawn—he had no doubt it was on that understanding that the promise of the Government was given—had proposed to deal with the matter on Report. It was on that understanding that the clause had been withdrawn, for if that promise had not been given, the question would most probably have been pressed to a division. What he wished to point out was this—that the Government were going to take this matter into consideration. He (Mr. Bulwer) wished to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the case of the landlord—and he would dismiss altogether 518 from his thoughts questions affecting the tenants. Well, the landlord, they would suppose, had a tenant who had not paid his rent, and he had dealt with that tenant in a manner such as he was quite entitled to do by law—he had got rid of him, having obtained such compensation or such part of his rent as he could. It might be that the landlord would say—"If I allow this man to come into this farm again, I may get the advantage of this Act, and I shall then be able to get something out of the Government—I shall get a year's rent which I cannot get now. That will be better than for me to leave the tenant to go into the hardware or some other trade on the chance that he will make a fortune, and I be able to press for my debt when he is no longer impecunious. Were the Government really going to do this—to allow the landlord, who had turned his tenant out and got rid of him, and of his rent and all claim to his rent, to have another chance of obtaining his money, which he had now turned into an ordinary debt? It must be borne in mind that it was no longer rent after the law had been put in force, but it was a debt. Were the Government going to allow the landlord to get back the late occupier as a tenant, and allow him to call that rent which had become a debt by the judgment of the Court? Were they going to allow a debt to be turned into rent, and to be treated as arrears of rent? Was the landlord to be allowed to re-instate a man into his farm and treat as rent the debt for which he had got judgment? It would neither be fair to the landlord nor the tenant, and it certainly would not be fair to the State, that the Consolidated Fund should be called on to incur the liability which the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) had so graphically pointed out.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the Government were not so hasty as the hon. Gentleman. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) had undertaken to give this matter careful consideration before any proposal was submitted to the House; and when the proposal was submitted, it would be for the House to say whether it was deserving of approval or not. It did not appear to him that there was any difficulty as to principle in this mat- 519 ter. If the landlord, who had two legal modes by which he could get rid of the tenant, chose to pursue one or the other, it did not follow that it was improper or impolitic to allow a landlord who had taken one course to remain in exactly the position he would have been in if ho had taken the other course. The landlord who had pursued the one course was in one sense very much in the position of the landlord who had pursued the other, apart from the legal technicality. These were two processes which wore used for obtaining the same ends. It would, of course, be a necessary condition to the tenant availing himself of the clause that he should owe rent which he could not pay.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that, under ordinary circumstances, when a proposition was made to withdraw an Amendment he should not have said a word about it; but if the Government would insist upon accepting these absurd proposals, it was desirable that they should be discussed to some extent.
§ MR. MOOREsaid, he did not see why there should be any grave objection to this Amendment. The people who would be affected by the Amendment were those who had been extremely ill- advised; but Parliament was now passing a Bill to wipe out old scores. The question was whether it was worth the while of Parliament, for the sake of a few exceptions, to continue this war and to continue the prevailing angry feeling. There were two ways in which to put down discontent. The one was by force, and the other by conciliation; but the Government had adopted a mixture. He would not speak of the Coercion Act they had just passed. This was a measure of conciliation; and he did say to the Committee that as long as these men had been evicted from their farms in consequence of the evil advice given them last year, and so long as these men were found in huts close to the farm, or in the adjoining villages watching with a jealous eye their former holdings, the Government must make up their mind to treat them with force or with conciliation, because so long as they remained in their present position outrages would occur. He hoped that the House, having passed the most sweeping Coercion Bill of modern times, would not think it worth while to exclude the men in question from the benefits of this Act, but 520 bring them in and give the country some chance of settling down.
§ MR. PLUNKETsaid, ho desired to reserve entirely his opinion on the subject until he saw the form in which the Government intended to bring forward the Amendment. At the present time he was unable to imagine in what form the Amendment could be put forward so as to be entertained by the Committee.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. PARNELLbegged to move the Amendment standing in his name to provide for something more than the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), which the Government had adopted a short time ago. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) proposed that where an evicted tenant had a period of redemption still unexpired he might apply to have it extended. The present Amendment provided that where the period of redemption of an evicted tenant was expired the Court might, if it thought fit, upon the application of the tenant, extend the period of redemption, and put the tenant in the same position as he was before the period expired, provided the farm was still vacant. It might be thought that this was rather an extreme proposal to make; but if they looked at the history of the last two years, and to the fact that the Government during that time—since the 1st of May, 1880, the date which he (Mr. Parnell) fixed for the retrospective action of his Amendment—had been engaged in an unavailing attempt to protect the smaller Irish tenants, and that during those two years, owing to the admitted fruitlessness of their attempt with regard to these smaller tenants, a very large number had been evicted, and the period of redemption of large numbers of them had expired, he thought it was not unreasonable to ask consideration of this Amendment from the Government. What was the case? When the Government came into Office in May, 1880, they had their attention directed to the pressing necessity which existed for stopping evictions in Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. W. E. Forster), brought in a Bill called the "Compensation for Disturbance Bill," in 521 order to check these evictions, more especially with regard to the smaller tenants. Hon. Members knew the fate of that Bill. The consequences, or one of the consequences, of that Bill, was that a very large number of tenants, notwithstanding all the exertions of the Government, had lost their rights in their holdings. This Arrears Bill had been brought in for the purpose of supplying the deficiencies in the Act of 1881 in regard to the question of arrears, more especially in regard to the smaller tenants in Ireland; and he submitted that it was reasonable and just that, when it was pointed out by himself and his hon. Friends to the Government that many of the evicted persons were located in different parts of Ireland, living in hopes that the day might come when they might be permitted to return to their little holdings—the right which the Act of 1881 sought to confer upon them—it was reasonable to call upon the Government to undertake retrospective action in so far as it was necessary to do justice to these people. In punishing the districts of Ireland the Government had adopted the principle of retrospective action, and he asked them also to do justice retrospectively in the way ho now proposed. The number of these tenants might not be very large. He had no means of estimating how many of the tenants who had been evicted since May, 1880, had been actually restored to their holdings; but, whether they be 100, or 1,000, or 5,000, he submitted this Parliament ought to show itself strong enough to do justice to them, and not to permit the action which destroyed the Compensation for Disturbance Bill in 1880, and the subsequent action which prevented the Government from inserting an efficient Arrears Clause in the Act of last Session, to consign these people to rash and hopeless despair. He had the utmost confidence in recommending this Amendment to the Government.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 7, after "1860," to insert as a new paragraph:—"Any tenant evicted from a holding to which this Act applies, for non-payment of rent since the first day of May one thousand eight hundred and eighty, and who, from lapse of time, is not entitled to apply, in pursuance of the seventy-first section of 'The Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland), 1860,' for a writ of restitution, may, during the time limited for application under
522
this Act, apply to the Land Commission for an order enlarging the time during which he may redeem his tenancy, which order the Land Commission, on such application, and on being satisfied that the holding in question is at the date of such application subject to no tenancy created since the eviction took place, shall have power to make, subject to such terms and conditions as may seem just. On any such order being made, the Land Commission may make a further order, under the first section of this Act, in the same manner as if, and such order shall have the same effect as if, the tenant had not been evicted."—(3Ir. Parnell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the present proposal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was quite of a different nature to those they had been discussing for some hours past. In this case the separation of the tenant from his holding was complete. He had been evicted for five or six months. The time of grace had passed, and he had no further connection whatever with his holding. The proposal was that, after the separation between a tenant and his holding was complete, he should, in spite of this complete separation, be restored to his holding, and, by this process, receive the advantages of the Bill. The Government could not accept such a proposal as that. It was quite different in substance to those which the Government had consented to consider before Report, and they could not possibly consent to it.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it was greatly to be regretted that the Government, expressing itself through the medium of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, should give its decision upon a most important question, without permitting a single Member of the Committee to offer a single comment upon it. He thought that was a very unwise course to take, and he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had precisely understood the bearings of these two Amendments. The first Amendment that the Government had promised to consider was one, in his mind, of a much more questionable character than the Amendment which the Government had contemptuously, and with out the slightest argument, rejected, because this Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) applied principally to all small and poor tenants who had been evicted for no fault of their own, but simply in consequence of their 523 poverty and misery. This Amendment applied to those tenants who existed in the South and West of Ireland, and in the counties of Kerry, Mayo, Connemara, and Galway, and these persons were now living in a state of the greatest, wretchedness, very often taking shelter under the rocks, with a few sods of turf before and around them. These persons were entitled to the first consideration of the House and of this Committee, and anything that could be done to restore them to a position of comparative comfort ought to be done. He should like to ask what harm in this remedial legislation could possibly come from allowing such tenants, in cases in which the Land Commissioners were convinced they might be restored because their holdings were not utilized by anybody else—what harm could come from allowing them to go back to their small and wretched homes, which were to them life itself? What were the class of tenants comprised in the former Amendment which the Government had consented to consider on Report? They were tenants who, in the majority of instances, could well pay their rents, but who let themselves be evicted at the dictation, or on the advice, of the Land League, which had promised to protect them. Now, the Government were going to do something for these men who had done that which was wrong. He certainly did not object; on the contrary, ho wished to Heaven they were all restored to their holdings; but these tenants were certainly not half so deserving of the protection of this House as the small and miserable class of tenants to whom the present Amendment referred, and he thought it deeply to be regretted that the decision of the Government should have been given in a way which showed that there had been no consideration of the question at all. He did not, for his part, know what this Bill was to do for the tenants of the South and West of Ireland, unless it was to restore them to their holdings. This Amendment would enable the Government to do that. A great many things were to be reconsidered on the Report, and ho hoped the Government would see their way to unsay what they had said, and by the admission of this Amendment do a great deal to pacify the country. Many reasons could be advanced to induce Her Majesty's Government to take a fa- 524 vourable view of the present Amendment.
§ MR. SEXTONwished to lay stress on the fact that the Government had accepted an Amendment identical in principle to the one now proposed. The Government had agreed that a tenant who had been evicted, and whose period of redemption had not expired, might apply to the Land Commissioners for the benefit of this Act. More than once the Prime Minister had described this measure as an Act of mercy, an Act not bound by stringent rule; and it was on the ground of mercy that he would ask the Government to give a favourable consideration to this Amendment. He hoped the Government would not stand out on so small a point as the expiration or non-expiration of the period of redemption. Four or five thousand of the families referred to by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had been evicted between the 1st of May, 1880, and the beginning of this year. They were families of the poorest class, families evicted because they were unable to pay their rent, and not because they followed what the hon. Member (Mr. Mitchell Henry) called bad advice. How could the Government consider the Act would be effective so long as 4,000 or 5,000 families were allowed to wander about smarting from a sense of wrong? They were living in the wooden huts provided by the Ladies' Land League; they were living in unspeakable misery; and one and all were looking to the day when they might be allowed to resume possession of their farms. From the point of view of men desiring the restoration of peace and order in Ireland, how could peace and order be restored if 4,000 or 5,000 families evicted in the last two years for the non-payment of rents, which the Courts of Law now declared unjust, were excluded from the benefits of this Bill? His hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) did not propose to interfere with any farm on which the landlord had taken a new tenant. If the landlord had been able since May, 1880, to get anyone to take the farm, it was not proposed that there should be any interference; but in a case where the farm remained vacant, where the landlord had been unable to make the farm a source of revenue, it was said that not only the interest of the tenant, but the interest of the landlord also, demanded some 525 such settlement as that now suggested. It was unnecessary to inquire from what cause the farm was vacant. It might be owing to a stringent public opinion; but he questioned the discretion of the landlord if he preferred the farm vacant rather than let. Perhaps the Government might see their way to some compromise. The date May, 1880, had been selected because the Government, in a new clause they intended to propose, had fixed upon that date. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) had said that the tenants referred to in this Amendment were separated from their holdings. So were the tenants referred to in the Amendment accepted by the Government. There was a sort of undefinable local tie subsisting between a tenant and his holding; and he (Mr. Sexton) hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) would reconsider his decision. He was sure there was no Member of the Government more anxious to put an end to any cause of disturbance in Ireland than the right hon. Gentleman; and, therefore, he would ask him, between this and Report, to consider how it could possibly be expected that peace and order would be restored if these evicted people were allowed to wander about Ireland without farms? If the right hon. Gentleman could not assent to the date 1880, would he consider whether he could not assent to some date last year? If they could not take in all the evicted tenants, let them take in as many as they could.
§ MR. SHAWsaid, it seemed to him there was one element that was present in the Amendment which the Government had promised to consider that was absent from the present Amendment, and that was the consent of the landlord. That was of great importance, and if the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) who moved the Amendment would allow the consent of the landlord to be brought in, he (Mr. Shaw) did not see why the Government should not consider it as well as the former Amendment. It would be a very hard case to force on a landlord, tenants who had been for a long time unfriendly towards him, and between whom and the landlord there had been a kind of war. He did not think the restoration of relations between such parties would be good for either of them; but if the landlord 526 agreed, he could not see why the Government should not give the tenants an opportunity of being restored to their holdings. It was all very well and easy to say that these people acted under bad and foolish advice. The people must be taken as they were. It was a fact, that could not be ignored, that in Ireland there were 4,000 or 5,000 families outside their holdings; there they were, an element of disturbance; and if this Bill were founded on the policy of restoring peace and good order in Ireland, it would be a very wise thing if the Government would see their way consistently with what was right and just to the landlord to give an opportunity to both parties to come together again. He knew of cases in his own county in which the landlord was as anxious as the tenant that a reconciliation should be brought about. As it was, there the parties were, looking at one another; many of the tenants were in great poverty and ready to engage in any disturbance which might arise. It would be politic for the Government if they could see their way to accept the Amendment in some form or other.
§ VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he was sorry to trouble the Committee; but, as a Member representing a constituency of English agriculturists, who had suffered from bad times as much, if not a great deal more, than the agriculturists of Ireland, he wished to point out to the Committee that the Government were being asked perpetually to grant further concession and further concession. The Government had already had two Amendments pressed upon them by the Irish Members below the Gangway, both of which they had agreed to consider and bring up again in another form on Report. Although it had been shown to the Government that the Amendments which they were going to propose on Report would increase the amount that would be required from the Imperial Exchequer for satisfying the claims under the Act, the Committee were told the amount would not be very large. But now the Government were asked to consider other words on Report with regard to this matter which would still further increase the amount which would be required to be paid over from the Imperial Exchequer. Although the amounts individually might not be very 527 great, he would remind the Committee that "mony a mickle maks a muckle," and that if they proceeded at that rate they would very shortly arrive at a very large amount. The sum required might be so increased that they would have the Income Tax increased to a very large extent. It must be remembered that a good deal of the money would come out of the pockets of the agriculturists of England, who, as he had said before, had suffered from hard times as much, if not more, than the agricultural tenants of Ireland. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) wished by this Amendment to afford some compensation or some consideration to tenants who had been evicted from their farms, those farms not having been, since the eviction, occupied by another tenant. The Committee had heard a very moving description of the unfortunate people who had been turned out of their farms—they had heard of the people sheltering under rocks and pieces of turf. No one could feel more for these wretched people than ho did, and he was sure the Committee would be glad to afford them all the consideration that could fairly be extended to them. But a still further question was raised. Those tenants who had been turned out of their farms, and whose farms had been occupied since the eviction by other tenants, were in exactly the same unpleasant and uncomfortable a position as those tenants who had been evicted, and whoso farms had not been occupied by other tenants. If the Government chose to give way in the manner now suggested, hon. Members might very fairly go to the Government and say—"You have considered the case of those tenants who have been evicted from their holdings, and whose holdings have not been occupied by other tenants; why are you not prepared to relieve those unfortunate tenants who are in exactly the same wretched position, but whose farms have been re-occupied; why are you to leave the latter class of tenants out in the cold? Surely, by the laws of justice and right, you ought to give them also some further consideration." And so, if the Committee were to go on in this way, they might go on for ever and ever. There was no knowing where they would stop in this matter; therefore, he trusted the Government would stand to their guns and not give way.
§ MR. EDAWARD CLARKEsaid, he hoped the Government would be resolute in this matter. There was all the more necessity for firmness on the part of the Government after what had been said by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) in reference to some of the matters which had taken place with respect to these evicted tenants. The hon. Gentleman said the tenants had been kept out of their holdings by causes into which it would not be well too curiously to inquire; the cause, he said, might be the prevalence of a stringent public opinion. The Committee knew what stringent public opinion meant. They knew it meant the terrorism of an organization which had been in existence in Ireland. To say that wherever this terrorism had been so vigorously and effectually exercised, that the landlord had been deprived of the power of letting his land for any length of time, the workers of that terror should be rewarded by seeing the tenant put back in his holding and granted public money, would be the most serious step in support of the system of terrorism which could possibly be taken. He hoped the Government would stand by their resolve; he hoped that if there was to be any attempt to modify the views of the Government, it would be done, not as had been suggested, by private conversation, but by a discussion in this House, the reasons for which modification might be publicly canvassed. The hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) said that if the Amendment were modified by inserting words providing that evicted tenants might apply. subject to the con-sent of the landlord, for relief under the Bill, the matter would be entirely altered, and the Government might fairly accept the Amendment. Suppose the Amendment to be adopted on condition that it contained a proviso requiring the consent of the landlord, let them see what would be the result. A tenant who went out in the month of June, 1880, who had been encamped in a Land League hut near his holding ever since that time, and whose holding had been vacant ever since the eviction, owing to the action of the Land League, would be entitled to go to the landlord and say—"Now, if you, instead of taking another tenant, let mo in, we can jointly go the Government and get a grant of public money." A pressure 529 would be put on the landlord, an inducement would be offered to him to lend himself to the tactics of the Land League. If the Government were to express any sort of concurrence with this proposal, whether it did or did not contain the proviso that the application should be made with the consent of the landlord, what chance would landlords in Ireland have of getting fresh tenants for the farms which were vacant? Why, Parliamentary sanction would be given to that authority which had kept these farms vacant. It was upon the large grounds of general policy that he hoped the Government would refuse to accept the present Amendment. There was just one other observation he wished to make. The noble Viscount (Viscount Folkestone) had pointed out the inequality which resulted from the acceptance of the Amendment. Very few people had been allowed to take farms from which tenants had been evicted, and because that had been the case, the Government ought not to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that within the last few days the Prevention of Crime Act had been passed, and it was now in operation all over Ireland. He would ask, whether, in view of that fact, it was wise or politic to keep 4,000 families out of their holdings, and not give them a chance of returning? What difficulty could there be in the way of the acceptance of the Amendment upon the conditions laid down by the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw") and by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton)? The hon. Member for Cork County had suggested that the evicted families should have an opportunity of going back to their holdings, subject to the consent of the landlord; and the hon. Member for Sligo had suggested that an application to be re-instated should only be made in case the holdings were still untenanted. Having regard to the operation of the Prevention of Crime Act, and to the statement made by the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw), that many landlords were anxious for a reconciliation, it would be very impolitic not to accept the Amendment upon the two conditions laid down.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he could not help observing that this was one of a series of Amendments which was bringing within the scope of the Bill a much 530 larger number of persons than was originally intended. It did not seem to be contemplated for a moment that if these Amendments were accepted, they would create a considerable disturbance in the financial calculations of the Government. The Committee were asked to admit to the benefits of the Bill certain classes of persons to whom it was not originally intended the Bill should apply. This was asked because the people had suffered some hardship or other; but, do what they would, a large number of cases must be excluded from the Bill, and persons must be shut out from the benefits of the measure who felt that the Bill ought to be extended to them. Hundreds of persons were now sought to be brought within the scope of the Bill. The line must be drawn somewhere, and he thought the Government would act consistently, and with some regard for the calculations they had made, if they adhered to the principle laid down, and not extend the Act to a subject which was not cognate to it.
§ DR. LYONSsaid, he desired to support the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) in asking the Government to reconsider this subject. It would be greatly to be regretted if persons were excluded from the operation of the Bill who had a fair claim to be re-instated. He had already said that this was not a fitting opportunity to make a retrospective and inquisitorial examination. He would like to point out that there were two classes of persons concerned in this matter. There were tenants who were evicted before the Land League had created what had been euphemistically described as a stringent public opinion. There were others, and they were large in number, whom he had in view when, two years ago, he proposed a measure for the relief of impending distress and for the stoppage of eviction in Ireland by a system of "loans" to tenants in arrear. He believed that this latter class of persons were fairly and equitably entitled to share in the operation of the Bill. The other class of tenants were in some respects rather more needy than any other body in Ireland, because, in too many instances, they had been, unfortunately for themselves, easy dupes of representations which it was afterwards found utterly impossible to carry out. These people had fallen between two stools. They 531 were in a most unfortunate position; and it would be a very regrettable thing if they were to extend the operations of the Act so widely as to take in the greater body of the tenants of Ireland, but, at the same time, exclude any class, especially any class against whose exclusion good arguments could be advanced. If this were done, it would only load to a smouldering of agitation, and to a feeling of dissatisfaction. There was, undoubtedly, all over Ireland, a tendency to return to the ways of peace and tranquillity, and the more wide-spreading they allowed an Act like this to be the more sure they were to bring about a general feeling of peace and contentment. Many people had been severely taught what it was to go in the teeth of common sense and of law; and when there was a desire on the part of every class of the community to settle down and return to peaceful avocations, it would be very much to be regretted if a considerable body of persons were to be excluded from the operation of this remedial legislation—a body of persons who were not in a position to leave the country by emigration, but who, if they wore excluded from the benefits of this Bill, must live in a condition of enforced wretchedness. Notwithstanding the statement of the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers), he would ask the Government to take this matter seriously into consideration.
§ MR. LAINGsaid, he wished to say that, having listened attentively to the debate, he earnestly hoped the Government would take the Amendment into consideration on the lines laid down by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw). He made that recommendation on the grounds of humanity and of policy. Only a very small sum of money would be required—about £30,000. It was not wise to leave outside the benefits of the Bill a number of starving people, who might become recruits for the army of outrage; and if English Members had seen, as he (Mr. Laing) had, the wretched condition of these poor people, he was sure they would not grudge this relief.
§ SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, the pressure sought to be put upon the Government by hon. Members during this discussion showed the danger and folly of any Government introducing a Bill of that description not founded on the first 532 principles of political economy—morality. Every hon. Gentleman who had clients of his own was anxious that they should be introduced within the scope of the Bill, and thus the Government were pressed to take in a number of people not hitherto included.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that when a proposal of that kind, which had been before the Government 100 times, and been fully considered, was made, he conceived it to be a duty to express at once the strong objection to it which they entertained. Ho was bound to say that a great deal which had fallen from hon. Members still more convinced him of the impossibility of making any concession in that form. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). proposed that when a tenant had been completely evicted and had got no successor, be should be entitled to resume his holding and to get the benefit of the Act; but if ho had been evicted and had had a successor, he should have no such right. In the latter case, it stood to reason that it would be impossible to replace him. He (Mr. Childers) had been much impressed by the forcible way in which the case had been put by several hon. Members, and particularly by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke), as to the great injustice that might result from not restoring a tenant who had a successor and restoring one who had not. That would mean that a tenant who had been able to bring such pressure to bear upon the landlord as to prevent him from getting another tenant should get the benefit of the Bill, whereas the tenant who had not brought such pressure to bear would be excluded. Of the two classes, if there was one who had a moral claim on the consideration of Parliament, it was the tenants who had not put that pressure upon the landlords. The hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) suggested that the evicted tenant, with the consent of his landlord, might be allowed to return to his holding, though the six months' period had elapsed. But they had already provided for that at the beginning of the 2nd clause.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that it was to meet a failure of agreement between the landlord and tenant from one cause or another that he had proposed this Amendment. Many of these tenants, 533 and he feared the majority of them, were unable to pay the year's rent which this Bill required. They had exhausted their slender resources; and, as regarded this particular class of tenants, he would urge the Government to consider whether it would not permit the Court to pay two years' rent instead of one, where the landlord was willing to re-instate the tenant. Such a provision would tempt the landlord to settle in many cases where no such inducement was now presented, and in that way a large number of tenants, who at present had no hope before them, would be re-instated, and put in a position by which they might become prosperous and peaceable members of the community. Otherwise he did not see how it was possible for the great majority of tenants, especially those evicted since 1880, to pay the arrears which the Bill required; and the additional expenditure would be very small, and would not, in all probability, appreciably increase the amount required from the Imperial Exchequer. This suggestion, together with another, whether the Government should consider the question of paying the costs, in some cases at all events, he desired to recommend to the consideration of the Government even on Report. This was a class of poor tenants who, admittedly had been evicted because they were unable to pay their rents; and in his experience, the vast majority of tenants had been bonâ fide unable to pay their rents, and had been evicted, not because of their obedience to the "no rent" manifesto, but simply because of their poverty. In this way the class of deserving tenants whom it was desired to protect would have an opportunity of being reinstated and becoming fairly prosperous; or, at all events, if they found it necessary to emigrate, they would do so without the feeling that they had been wrongfully deprived of their holdings.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he wished to point out the fallacy in the argument of the Secretary for War—that was the supposition that all the tenant farmers were evicted because of intimidation. That was not so at all. Nobody had been more averse to evictions than he had, and nobody condemned them more than he did; but he felt bound to say that in the vast majority of instances the farms were not vacant because of intimidation, but because 534 there was nobody ready to take them. In England there were hundreds of farms vacant at this moment because the state of agriculture had been very bad. Still there were in Ireland 3,000 or 4,000 evicted farmers who must be dealt with in some way or other. Many of those people were as innocent as men could be, and many of those who were guilty were as much to be pitied as the victims of intimidation. The Government ought to consider this question in all its length and breadth, and endeavour to restore something like peace to Ireland.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Application of Act to existing leases).
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.