§ Clause 12 (Exclusion of tenants of holdings of an aggregate valuation exceeding thirty pounds).
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he had an Amendment to propose to this clause, which he hoped the Government would find no difficulty in accepting. A man might be nominally possessed of two holdings— 923 that is to say, his name might be entered on the rate-book as possessor of them, while they were actually in the occupation of his sons as assignees. The object of the Amendment was to enable the assignees of the holding to apply for the benefit of the Act.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 2, after "is," leave out "possessed," and insert"inoccupation."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'possessed' stand part of the Clause."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the Government could not accept the Amendment. The person primarily responsible to the landlord, although he might put his son in occupation of the farm, would be the person to whom the Act applied; and it would be impossible for the Government to make the distinction indicated in the Amendment of the hon. Member.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the Government could not have considered his point sufficiently, because they had already given way upon it in the Bill. They had agreed to bring up on Report an Amendment extending the benefit of the Act to two persons, each paying £25 a-year for a farm entered in the rate-book at £50, and it seemed very hard that they refused to accept this Amendment, which contained the same principle. It would seem that the Government, by taking advantage of a technicality, wished to oust parties entitled to the benefit of the Act. Let the Committee take the by no means uncommon case of a man parcelling out his holding valued at £50 per annum between his two sons. The operation might have taken place 20 years ago; and yet, according to the statement of the Solicitor General for Ireland, those sons would not be entitled to the benefit of the Act. He should be quite with the Government in regard to cases in which the possession was divided for colourable reasons, in order to get relief from arrears since the introduction of the Bill. But he contended that the Act ought to apply in the case of a holding in the occupation of two sons for 15, 10, five, or even one year before the Bill was brought in. For these reasons he trusted that the Government, who had already admitted this principle in an earlier section, would see the justice of 924 adopting a similar principle in the present instance.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the statement he made was that, where the landlord recognized it as a fact that there were two distinct holdings rented at £30 or under, the tenants should not suffer, although the farm might stand in the rate-book as one holding at £50 or £60 per annum.
§ MR. HEALYagreed that the right hon. Gentleman had correctly stated the case. The whole point lay in the word "possessed," which, as he understood it, meant possession in law. He was willing that the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken should be extended to his Amendment.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the question of rating had nothing to do with the subject that had been raised. If a person were the tenant of two different holdings, jointly valued at not more than. £30 a-year, and if he were the person responsible for the rent to the landlord, he would be the person to obtain the benefit of the Act, even if he had put his sons in possession of the holdings. An arrangement of that kind on the part of the tenant was made for his own convenience; it made no difference to the landlord how he disposed of the occupation of the farm. But if a person responsible for the rent of two holdings, jointly exceeding in value £30 a-year, gave them up to his sons or herds, he would not come under the Bill so long as he remained in legal possession of the holdings. Again, if a man placed his son on one of the farms with the assent of the landlord, and the landlord looked upon him as being the tenant, and received from him the rent of one of the holdings, that son would be the tenant, and, as such, would be entitled to the benefit of the Act.
§ MR. GIVANsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Wexford was under the impression that the word "possessed" implied some technical right. According to the way in which the hon. Member had put his Amendment, a man might be in occupation of a holding, but not as tenant. He suggested that the Solicitor General for Ireland might meet the object of the hon. Member by agreeing to insert after the proposed Amendment the words "as tenant thereof."
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he hoped the Government would not admit the alteration proposed by the hon. Member for Wexford. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), it appeared to him inconsistent with the words at the beginning of the section.
§ DR. LYONSsaid, no doubt, the inquiry into cases of this kind would be very stringent. He asked what would be the status with regard to the Bill of persons who, as was frequently the case in Ireland, were in the rate-book and in the books of the landlord as the "Representative" of persons deceased or absent? In many parts of the country rents were being received, and receipts given, from year to year in the name of Mr. So-and-So, the representative of—say Mr. John M'Carthy. The explanations of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War were, no doubt, for the moment, well understood in that House; but it was not what was said or understood there now that would rule hereafter; they had to consider the way in which the Act would be interpreted by the Court.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he was always ready to accept the expositions of the law made by the Government lawyers in that House; but he often thought that Mr. Law, now Lord Chancellor of Ireland, must have bitterly regretted, when he stood alone, so to speak, in the Court of Appeal, some of the readings of the law which he gave during the passage through the House of the Land Bill of last year. In view of the experience they had of the hard way in which every line of that Act had been construed, he asked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he was still determined to adhere to the word "possessed" in this clause? He believed the words "in occupation," which he proposed to substitute for it, would make the matter much clearer.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the question was whether the person was possessed of the holding or not. A man might be in occupation of a holding, but not possessed of it.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment; but he should do so with the feeling that when he and his hon. Friends were proved to be right and the Law Officers of the Crown wrong 926 in their interpretation of the words, the Government ought to bring in a Bill to meet the case of the unfortunate tenants who might be ousted of their rights by this section in the circumstances he had indicated.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the Amendment he was about to move involved a point which was raised in connection with the Land Act of last year. The object was to provide that a tenant who held a holding, say, at £25, under one landlord, and a second holding at £10 under another landlord, should not be deprived of the benefit of this Act. He trusted the Government would accede to this proposal.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 3, after "applies," insert "held under the same landlord."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, there was one reason for supporting the Amendment. He believed it would facilitate the working of the Act. It must be remembered that the landlord had to make an affidavit with regard to the fulfilment of the conditions specified in the 1st clause; and it would be impossible for him to know whether a man held under another landlord or not. Again, a man might have one holding at a fair rent, either settled by the Land Court or originally agreed upon; and he might also hold another farm, for, say, three or four years, for grazing purposes at a competition rent under another landlord. He thought cases of that kind ought to be taken into consideration by the Government, with a view to their not being excluded from the operation of the Act. As the Amendment appeared to him to satisfy the point he should give it his support.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he could hardly accept the argument of the hon. and gallant Member that the working of the Bill would be facilitated, because if the Government were to begin to admit considerations of the kind suggested by the Amendment, a great deal more difficulty would arise than would be the case if the clause remained as at present.
§ COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he would urge the Committee to reject the Amendment, which would be an inducement to 927 "land grabbing," the very thing which had caused so much difficulty by placing exorbitant prices on farms, and, in consequence, depriving people of the chance of getting a living from them.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he put the case of a tenant who, having taken two farms together, valued at less than £30 a-year, afterwards by the labour of his hands, and the expenditure of his own money, built a dwelling-house, which brought up the rateable value of the property to more than the limit fixed by the Bill. He asked whether it was the intention of the Government that a tenant so situated should be ousted from the benefit of the Act? In order to have that point cleared up, he begged to move the Amendment next standing in his name.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 6, after "year," insert "Provided, That the tenement value of any house or building shall be excluded from the valuation of such holdings."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he trusted the Government would give their favourabe attention to this Amendment. It had to be borne in mind, after all, that if a tenant built a good house for himself, and by so doing raised the valuation of his holding above £30, he did not thereby place himself in a better position, or render himself more able to pay his rent than a tenant who did not do so, and who was contented to live in a hovel. Of course, when the tenant had improved his land, and raised the value of it over £30, it would be just to allow the Bill, as it stood, to operate, because the tenant would be necessarily in a better position to pay his rent than if he had not made the improvement. But in the case suggested by the hon. Member for Wexford, it would be a great hardship that the tenant who had consumed his capital in building a good house for himself should find himself excluded from the benefit of this Bill. To exclude such a man would be equivalent to fining him for being industrious and endeavouring to live in a more decent way than the majority of his neighbours.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, the argument of the hon. Member for the City of Cork 928 (Mr. Parnell) was that a man who could afford to build a good house for himself was no more able to pay the rent of his holding than the man who could not afford to build one. He hoped the Government would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), which required that in every case, without regard to the conditions under which such buildings might have been erected, the tenement value of such buildings should be excluded from the valuation of the holding.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government could not possibly accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. They must deal with the holding as a whole, and not distinguish between portions of it, which would amount to a complete departure from the principle which had been all along established. He would also observe that the Amendment embraced all buildings whatever, whereas the arguments in support of it had been entirely confined to dwelling-houses.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that the Prime Minister, at an earlier stage of the Bill, convoyed to the House that they were willing to exclude the tenant's improvements from the valuation. He understood that the Government had made up their minds that it was possible for a tenant, without some reservation in his favour, to improve himself out of the benefit of the Bill. However that might be, if the Government were now disposed to put a premium on unimproving tenants, Irish Members could do nothing but divide against the principle.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he understood the hon. Member had referred in his speech to the ease of a man having an agricultural holding valued at £25, and another holding not agricultural valued at £10. He also understood him to say that one holding should not be counted against the tenant so as to exclude his other holding. He believed that was in the Bill as it then stood.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, in that case the whole of his argument as to the grazing holding and agricultural holding held by one tenant was admitted. He trusted this would be made perfectly clear on Report, if it were not already in the Bill.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, everyone knew that dwelling-houses were separately valued from the rest of the 929 holding. But the farm was none the less one holding on that account. The effect of the Amendment would be that a man valued at £30 for his farm, who had also a house upon it valued at £6, would be entitled to come under this Act. It was, in fact, an attempt to slide up the scale from £30 to £36.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 13 (Cancellation of certain rent charges under 44 & 45 Vict., c. 49, s. 59, in repayment of advances for arrears of rent).
§ On the Motion of Mr. HEALY, Amendments made, in page 6, line 15, by leaving out "Civil Bill;" and in page 6, line 25, by leaving out "Civil Bill."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ (Arrears of rent how dealt with.)
§ Where it appears to the court, on the joint application of the landlord and tenant of any such holding valued at a sum not exceeding fifty pounds a-year—
§ That the tenant has paid the whole (or such sum as the landlord may be willing to accept as the equivalent of the whole) of the rent payable in respect of the year of the tenancy expiring as aforesaid, and that antecedent arrears are due, the Land Commission may make, in respect of such antecedent arrears, an advance of a sum not exceeding one year's rent of the holding, and not exceeding half the antecedent arrears, and thereupon the court shall by order declare the holding to be charged with the repayment of the advance to the Land Commission, by a rent-charge payable half-yearly during the thirty-five years from the date specified in the order, and calculated at the rate of five pounds by the hundred, by the year, of the advance;
§ Whenever, in the ease of any tenant evicted for non-payment of rent since the first day of May, one thousand eight hundred and eighty, the landlord agrees to reinstate such tenant on the terms in this section set forth, this section shall apply as if such tenant had not been so evicted from his holding.
§ The charge declared by the order as aforesaid shall have priority over all charges affecting the holding except quit-rent and Crown rent, and sums payable to the Commissioners of Public Works, and the landlord for the time being of the holding shall pay to the Land Commission the sum for the time being due on account of such rent charge.
930§ Every half-yearly amount of such rent-charge shall be deemed to be an addition to the half-year's rent of the holding (whether a judicial rent or otherwise) due from the tenant to the landlord, and may be recovered by the landlord accordingly.
§ On the order of the court being made as aforesaid in relation to any holding, such antecedent arrears shall be deemed to be absolutely released.
§ The landlord and tenant may agree that any rent paid by the tenant in or subsequent to the year expiring as aforesaid shall be deemed, for the purposes of this section, to have been paid in respect of the rent due for that year, and not in respect of arrears of rent.
§ Where arrears of rent in respect of a holding are due to some person or persons besides the landlord, the advance made under this section shall be rateably distributed by the court amongst the persons entitled thereto.
§ An application for an advance under this section shall not be made after the periods mentioned in the eleventh Clause aforesaid.
§ The omission or refusal by either landlord or tenant of any holding to join with the other of them in obtaining a loan from the Land Commission under this section shall not prejudice any other application or proceeding which either of them may make or institute under this Act or "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870," or "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," in relation to such holding.
§ The Land Commission shall at such time after the expiration of each period of twelve months as the Treasury may from time to time appoint make up an account showing for the said period of twelve months the amount of all such payments due to them in respect of rent-charges payable to them under this section as they have failed to recover at the expiration of the said period,
§ said, he should not detain the Committee at any length in proposing this clause. The Committee would be already familiar with its character, because it corresponded with the Arrears Clause for the Land Act of last year, except as to certain changes introduced into it, to which he had already referred in anticipation. The most important of these was, perhaps, the alteration of the time which would be granted for the repayment of the loans, and the effect of which would be to reduce the heavy payment of £8 10s. per annum to the moderate payment of £5 per annum in respect of capital and interest. The arguments in favour of the clause were very simple. The clause was intended to soften the harshness of the distinction between those who got the gift and those who got nothing at all—between those who underwent the test of inability to pay and those who were not obliged to admit themselves to have sunk to that point in the social scale, but with respect to whom the circum- 931 stances were such that it might he both equitable and politic on the part of the State to render them reasonable and moderate assistance within the limits of a loan. That was the general argument on which the Government founded the clause. The other argument had relation to the expenditure likely to take place under the clause, and this he did not conceive would he large. The number of persons possessed of holdings between the valuations of £30 and £50 reached a total which the Government computed to represent, on the whole, a rent of about £2,000,000 a-year. Were they to reckon the total amount of the demand upon the public funds for loans in the same proportion as their estimate of the demand upon those funds for the money expended by way of gift in the case of holdings of £30 and under, they would have arrived at a sum of between £500,000 and £600,000; hut it was a well-known fact that the tenants above £30 valuation and up to £50 were to a less extent in arrear than those below the £30 valuation. He did not think it likely that more than £750,000 would be added to the sum total of expenditure under this Bill in respect of the clause now proposed. He always wished the House to understand that a general estimate of possible expenditure should be taken largely. But it would not surprise him if the expenditure in this case fell materially short of the estimate, because the subject was one which did not require a great allowance to be made for possible error. He believed it might, however, be taken as an estimate likely to represent the actual expenditure under the clause. He bogged to move that the clause of which he had given Notice be read a second time.
§ New Clause (Arrears of rent how dealt with,)—(Mr. Gladstone,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, it was not his intention to offer any opposition to the clause being read a second time. He would merely point out that it made a considerable change in the Bill. It was, in fact, a Bill in itself, because it proposed to deal with all tenancies, without distinction, which were held at the 932 valuation of £50 and under. He did not wish to criticize the policy of a clause resting on the basis of loan; but he could not forget that the provision in the Land Act of last year, which was essentially on the same lines as this clause, had practically failed. Undoubtedly, there were some operations under it; but, broadly speaking, it was a failure. There was a substantial difference which distinguished this clause from the Arrears Clause in the Bill of last year—namely, the extension of the period for the repayment of the loan from 15 to 35 years, which, of course, mitigated the pressure exercised on the party who had to repay the money, and this was a fact entitled to have great weight in their consideration of the clause. But the clause also retained one of the provisions of the Arrears Clause of last year which mainly contributed to its failure—namely, that the landlord was the person liable for the repayment of the loan. Now, although the landlord might get a certain amount of benefit from the loan, the person who would be materially benefited was the tenant. He ventured to say that every landlord whoso pecuniary circumstances raised him above absolute penury and distress refused to avail himself of the Act of last year for the reason he had mentioned. Therefore, he saw every reason for anxiety with reference to the working of the present clause. It said that an advance was to be made for high State purposes to keep the tenant in possession of his holding, but then the landlord must repay the advance within the period of 35 years. He was bound to say that, in his opinion, many landlords would hesitate largely before they rendered themselves liable in the way proposed by the clause. He did not think that the tenant could reasonably object to pay a moderate sum for the period of 35 years for the benefit he received when it was considered that the loan was made for his own convenience. At any rate, in dealing with a wide clause like this, it was well to consider whether it was likely to have an extensive operation, or to be killed like the clause of last year for the reason indicated. This clause would be regarded with great jealousy by tenants in Ireland who were excluded from its provisions, because there was no suggestion, from beginning to end, of any condition what- 933 ever to be satisfied by the tenant as to his property. Any tenant who was in arrear, whether rich or poor, was entitled to come in, if he could get the landlord to join him, and so get the benefit of public money on these particularly easy terms. But when a tenant above £50 valuation in Ireland, or any tenant in England, saw these easy terms given for the asking, without proof of poverty, great soreness would be created. So far as he knew, there was at present in Ireland a vast difference of opinion on all sides in relation to this Bill. Tenants who had honestly paid their rents and striven to meet their obligations and to resist dangerous criminal teaching, felt soreness at being left out in the cold, while other tenants, many of whom had made no effort to pay their debts and had submitted to terrorism or habits of improvidence, were to have all the benefits of the Bill. The discussion which took place last night brought before the Committee again the difference between the structure of this clause and that of the general clauses of the Bill. The conditions imposed under the previous clause of the Bill were essentially most complicated. He merely asked the Government to bear in mind, before putting down Amendments on Report, the comparative simplicity with which they would call upon the tenant to show that he had paid a year's rent in 1881, leaving it to the landlord and tenant to appropriate the payment for another year, as compared with the immensely complicated way in which they dealt with the tenant under the Gift Clause. On a previous occasion he had pointed out, as plainly as he could, his own great difficulty in the matter; and opinions which he had received from Ireland had strengthened his view, and led him to think that clause was at present a mass of confusion.
§ COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he was convinced that the adoption of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to allow a loan to be made on the security of a tenant's land would be a great benefit. If it was made necessary for the landlord to give security for the repayment, the clause would have very little effect. He did not think the State would run any risk by being content with the tenant's security. The security might be on the holding as well as on the tenant's interest, if that were necessary; but he was 934 sure it would be of the greatest advantage and would do away with the chief difficulty of joint application, because there would be no difficulty in getting the landlord's consent when he was not to be made responsible. He hoped the Government would consider that point, coming as it did from one whose suggestions were as well worthy of consideration as those of his hon. Friend were.
MR. GORSTsaid, he must express his alarm and concern lest this clause should prove to be the embryo of an Arrears of Rent Act of 1883. It bore a suspicious resemblance to the Arrears Clause of the Act of last year, which was introduced as a final measure. The strongest denunciations were made by Ministers of the immorality which would result from gift instead of loan. The Chief Secretary had spoken of the denunciation which might have been applied to that clause if it had provided gift instead of loan; and it was then prophesied that the clause would fail. Nobody, at that time, suspected that it would be made the foundation of the Arrears Act of 1882; but now this clause was proposed. It was true that the tenants were to have £50 valuation instead of £30; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had anticipated the failure of the clause; and what security was there that the Government would not come forward in 1883 and, saying that the system of loan had failed and they must make the thing compulsory, propose another Arrears Bill?
§ MR. GIVANsaid, he was rather at a loss to know how the proposal of the Prime Minister would place hon. Members opposite. Although he had not always agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson), he thoroughly agreed with the objection he had made to this new clause in regard to the advance being made on the security of the landlord's interest. With the failure of the Loan Clause of last year's Act before them, was the House to follow the same course, and run the same danger? They must expect that the landlords in Ireland would refuse to join with the tenants in making applications, and it would be dangerous for them to do so; for what landlord in Ireland, or elsewhere, would now under- 935 take to charge his property for 35 years with a loan which was to be advanced by the State for the relief of the ten-ant? Numerous difficulties presented themselves to his mind, and the matter bristled with objections. There might be cases in which the mortgagees had barely security for their interest; by the framework of this Bill, and this new clause, the loan to the tenant would have priority over the mortgage. Suppose a tenant wished to sell his land, there would be this incumbrance, which could not be disposed of except by liquidation of the debt. Suppose a landlord wished to sell to his tenant, the estate been already charged with the advance to the tenant; how was the matter to be arranged then? The tenant was bound to pay these instalments for 35 years; but the moment they ceased, where was the money then? He would not make it imperative on the Commissioners to make advances to every tenant unless they were satisfied that he had sufficient margin on the holding to make the advance safe. Although the Prime Minister intended to extend to tenants above £30 benefits from which they would be shut out as the Bill stood, he was afraid this would be a complete failure if the advance was charged on the landlord's interest.
MR. GLADSTONEThe House and the Committee have had the most distinct intimation from the Government of the proposal they would undertake to make, and they were informed in the clearest manner that that proposal must be a proposal under which the State was to be exempted from the great political mischief of becoming the creditor of possibly a large number of tenants on the basis of their tenant right. Nothing could be clearer than that, and although I made that declaration, and said we could not have agreed to propose a clause upon any other basis, we were encouraged to go on to make that proposal; and now hon. Members say there is nothing to be looked for but a complete failure if this restriction is maintained. I wish I had been made acquainted with their objection, in order that I might have prejudged the matter. I went distinctly into the change we proposed to make, and left the clause of 1881 as it is in respect of security. The whole financial aspect of the matter, I explained, would 936 be changed, and the question of the £500,000 is no test at all of the amount to be charged; but I am prepared to be responsible for the clause we have changed. To adopt indiscriminately the principle that the State is to become the creditor of these persons is a provision which I think open to political danger far greater than any benefit arising from the clause. It is said that the landlords will stand in relation to this clause in the same position as under the clause of last year. I do not agree in that; not only because of the great difficulty in regard to the annual payments to be made, but likewise because, under the Act of last year, it was intended to be the basis of the whole operation, and it was a serious matter indeed for a landlord, who might have many hundreds of tenants in arrear, to have no option before him except that of becoming responsible for the whole of the sum advanced to them; but now he is required to undergo no responsibility whatever with regard to the bulk of his tenants. But there is a kind of margin which, quite unaware of the reception to be accorded to it, we agreed to add to the measure for the sake of touching a case of an intermediate class. This is a case of a limited addition to be made to a number of tenants in arrear; and it does not follow that the landlord must object to incur a very small liability for the sake of clearing off the arrears on holdings under £50, although he is unwilling, or perhaps unable, to incur very large liabilities for the sake of dealing with the whole of the cases. I think there is some inconvenience in having this discussion on the second reading; but certainly I should be glad to hear something more after the discouraging prospect held out by the hon. Member behind me.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, before this clause was passed the Committee should be distinctly informed whether it was to be persevered in or whether it was to be withdrawn. He would assume that the right hon. Gentleman, having after due consideration placed this clause on the Paper, it would be persevered in.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had proposed a clause which was practically a new Bill. Under cover of this clause it was proposed to 937 add a serious item, charged on the Consolidated Fund. That might be right or wrong; but at any rate it was a serious proposition which must be regarded by the House in the light of a clear addition to the burden imposed on the taxation of the country. Some reference had been made to the desirability of making this charge on the tenant and not on the landlord. He had several times been taken to task for having emphatically declined, in connection with advances made some two years ago, to allow advances to be made to the tenant. Proposals were made with regard to the financial proposals of the late Government in connection with the distress in 1880, to the effect that the tenant should be allowed to borrow money. He had distinctly declined to be a party to that, because the tenants had at that time no tangible security to offer. Now, however, a considerable portion of the landlords' property had been arbitrarily, and unceremoniously, and without compensation handed over to the tenants. It had been taken away from the landlords without a farthing of compensation and handed over to the tenants who did not pay a farthing for it, and now was available if required as security for money advanced to the Irish tenants. He would remind the Committee that the objection which could be justly advanced two years ago to any attempt to lend money to the Irish tenant who had no security to offer was now entirely altered. When they took a third of the property belonging to the landlord and handed it over to the tenant without payment, it was no longer the case that the tenant could not offer any security. He had not objected to similar proposals in 1880 because the persons designated were tenant farmers, but because they had at that time no tangible security to offer. Therefore, he did not see why the tenants under their altered circumstances should, not be entitled to have loans. When the Committee came to discuss this clause in detail, he hoped the Prime Minister would explain why he proposed to subject unfortunate mortgagees, who he fancied were in a nervous state of mind, to this further obligation—the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the mortgagees, who had very poor security, if any at all, for present advances, should make way for the loans. He hoped that would be explained.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, if he reconsidered this Bill, would take into consideration this point—the arrear of rent to be advanced under this clause was to spread over 35 years, but under the Bill of last year the tenant had a right to sell his tenant right, and it seemed to him that a considerable addition was made by the money due having a duration of 35 years. However that might he, there was the difficulty that when the tenant who purchased the tenant right came before the Land Commission to have a judicial rent again fixed for 15 years, he would expect to have his rent reduced to what he considered fair, minus a 35th part of the arrears. Why should such a tenant have accumulated on him the arrears of a previous tenant? He was quite sure that this extension of the arrears would cause a great difficulty both as to selling the tenant right and as to fixing a judicial rent.
MR. GORSTsaid, he might remind the Committee that the late Chief Secretary last year said, with reference to a remark of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) as to this being a demoralizing principle, that he could not see anything demoralizing in it, but that it would doubtless be very demoralizing if the parties were forced to accept the proposal.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, the object of his Amendment was that the Arrears Clause and the Arrears Bill should really reach the tenant farmers of Ulster. So far as he could see by the Bill, according to the definition given by the Prime Minister of the tenant right, a great many of the tenant farmers of Ulster would be excluded from the benefits. No doubt, the Prime Minister proposed to arrange that tenants of over £50 should have the benefit of the Bill; but the conditions were that the applications must be joint applications by the landlord and the tenant. His Amendment simply proposed that, on the application of either the landlord or the tenant, the benefit of the Bill should be allowed. That would enable the tenant to apply for a loan. With regard to the Arrears Clause of the Act of 1881, the fatal defect of that was that the landlord and tenant had jointly to apply in connection with a loan for the discharge 939 of arrears, and the advance was to be generally charged on the property. Under the present condition of matters in Ulster, it was perfectly impossible that the landlords would join the tenants in any arrangements in connection with this Bill, and the result would be that many deserving tenants in Ulster would be left out in the cold, because their tenant right would come in as a barrier to their obtaining a loan. They would be unable to obtain advances from the banks or money-lenders on their tenant right, and if something was not done for the tenants of Ulster, a great many tenant farmers would be excluded from the benefit of this Act. He was quite aware that the Prime Minister in the new clause brought in the condition of extending the time from 15 to 35 years; but he very much doubted whether that was a valuable concession. He would rather see the time limited to 15 years, so that it should expire with the terms of the judicial rent in the Land Act of 1881. Fifteen years was the term named, and he considered that quite sufficient for any duration under this Arrears Bill, for his experience in connection with loans was that where a tenant borrowed for 35 years the interest became a permanent charge on the holding, and he thought the Prime Minister would do well to yield to the representations of Irish Members sitting on this side of the House, and to allow tenants to apply for a loan on their own security, the loan not to extend beyond 15 years. Unless some concession was made by which the tenant could borrow on the security of his tenant right, apart from the landlord, the Arrears Bill would be inoperative all over Ulster. He believed that £300,000 would cover the entire sum required in the North of Ireland for both gift and loan; and, taking into consideration the disastrous state of agriculture at present, he thought the Prime Minister should consider the condition of the tenants in the North of Ireland, by assenting to the proposal to allow them to borrow on their own security, especially when the security offered was equal to the fee-simple of the landlord, and that the law-abiding-tenant farmers of the North of Ireland, who had suffered so much in the past seasons, should be entitled to obtain loans when they could not acquire gift. In Ulster there were as many, if not more, 940 evictions than in any other Province of Ireland, and yet there was neither crime nor outrage, and he certainly felt that the tenant farmers of Ireland should be entitled to obtain loans. As to the failure of the Arrears Clause in the Laud Act, that was shown by the fact that in his own county, notwithstanding all the pressure in connection with rents, only £68 were granted under the Act in connection with arrears.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Now Clause,
In line 1, after "Court," insert "on the application cither of landlord or tenant."—(Mr. T. A. Dickson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, he had never spoken on this Bill; but he had voted two or three times on principle, and against his Party, for the Bill, because he believed it was brought in to relieve the extremely poor and utterly helpless tenants in Ireland, and would not have any application elsewhere. If, as the hon. Member had just said, the Government was bound to come to the support of those who could give security, then he thought a good many people in Essex desired relief quite as much as those in Ulster. For that reason simply he thought the Prime Minister was absolutely right, when he brought in what was practically a new Bill, to adhere to the terms he had placed on the Paper; and he certainly opposed the Amendment.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he failed to see in what manner it would be possible to meet the suggestion of the hon. Member; on the present occasion the Committee had to deal with a specific Amendment, and they should clearly understand what the effect of that Amendment would be. The proposal of the hon. Member was to insert "on the application either of landlord or tenant," so that the application of this section would not take place where the tenant and landlord were agreed, but where the landlord wished to put the clause in operation in spite of the tenant or where the tenant wished to put it in operation in spite of the landlord. What would be the effect of that? What the hon. Member proposed was, that if a landlord wished to accept from the Government arrears of rent in discharge 941 of arrears due to him by the tenant, he should be able to do so, and to burden the tenant's interest in spite of the tenant himself; that was to say, that the tenant would have to submit to a burden upon his interest simply because a landlord desired to get a year's rent. That, he ventured to say, would do an infinite amount of mischief. But the hon. Member, on the other hand, thought, although the landlord should not wish to come to such an arrangement, nevertheless the tenant might force the landlord to accept a year's rent in lieu of his arrears; and although the landlord might know the tenant was able to pay, nevertheless he was bound in such a ease to accept a year's rent, and to have that rent charged during a certain period on the estate. Either of these provisions—to either force the landlord to accept from a solvent tenant a year's rent, or for the landlord to be able to force on the tenant a charge on the holding against his will, even though the mortgagee should be the State—would raise such objections that the clause would be absolutely unworkable. That was irrespective of the general principle of the hon. Member that where it could be done without difference between the parties the State might, in certain cases, take the security of the landlord. When they came to that question, the Government would be prepared to discuss it; but the present Amendment would be entirely unworkable. Therefore, he hoped it would not be accepted.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he was inclined to think it would be prudent for the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, and concentrate his force on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), which, he thought, to a great extent, would carry out his object and make the clause, if the Government saw their way to accept it, a practical and workable clause. He still adhered to the opinion that it would have been better to have left the clause to work on the same conditions as the Gift Clause; to have it compulsory on the landlord, but to have included the condition of inability to pay, and not to take into account the value of the tenant right as a portion of the means by which the tenant might be able to pay. However, the Government had decided to adopt the other principle, and to leave the question of inability out of the case 942 altogether; and, under the circumstances, he thought the hon. Member would see that it would be asking rather too much that the loan should be granted on the application of one person only. After all, the hon. Member would recollect that this was one of the most important conditions of the whole matter. He thought the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan would get over the indisposition of the landlord to agree in all reasonable cases to an application, and that it would be found that one of the chief causes which rendered the clause of the Land Act inoperative would be avoided if the Government agreed to that Amendment. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) that it would be well to proceed as soon as possible with the subsequent Amendment.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, his impression was that the Government might safely accept either this Amendment or the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan), in combination with that of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), and then to reduce the term from 35 to 15 years. The combination of these Amendments would allow the tenant to put the Act into force, but would compel him to place a charge on his holding, and be responsible for it, and would shorten the time from 35 to 15 years.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, and wait for that of the hon. Member for Monaghan.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ DR. LYONSsaid, he rose to propose that the limit of valuation should be £100 instead of £50. He said his object was that the Government, having gone the length of relieving by gift or loan the greater part of the tenants in Ireland, should not leave out a comparatively small class. The total number of tenants in Ireland of £100 valuation was very small, and they constituted an independent class, who were the least likely to put forward unfounded claims on the State. Bat there was certainly a number of holders over £50 who had had their interests injuriously affected by bad seasons; and when the State undertook to assist others, he could not see why they should stop at £50, especially as ample security for repayment of the 943 loan was provided. What was wanted was to give general assistance with, safety to the State, and there was no danger to the State in extending the limit beyond that of £50 valuation.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, in line 2, leave out "fifty," and insert "one hundred."—(Dr. Lyons.)
§ Question proposed, "That 'fifty' stand part of the proposed New Clause."
MR. GLADSTONEI regret that we cannot accept this Amendment. Condition has been the main capital element in the Bill all along, and it is not possible to apply that principle to persons paying from £70 to £100 a-year. It would seriously prejudice the Bill, and I hope it will not be pressed.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Prime Minister had stated that it was not to be any obligation on the part of an applicant for a loan to show poverty. The same argument would apply to holders of £100as to those of £50.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought inability to pay and poverty were so near that they need not split hairs. The Prime Minister objected to the tenant at £100 having the same facilities as the tenant at £50. He could not understand whore the line was drawn. He did not wish to increase the charge on the Consolidated Fund; but if the Prime Minister intended to assist tenants at £50, he could not see why those at £100 should not be assisted. He did not see why there should be any limit at all, because the Government were stereotyping the worst class of tenants who were absolutely insolvent, and denying assistance to numbers of most deserving tenants in the country—the tenants whom it was most desirable, on the ground of public interest, to retain in their holdings. In his opinion, the great mass of the existing small holders of land would bo far better as labourers; and to make them farmers was an injurious proceeding. He could not but admit that the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) had conclusively proved his case. He was sorry that the hon. Member put the limit at £100, for he thought he should have proposed an unlimited amount. If the Bill had been left as it was drawn, and it was provided 944 that the tenant applying must be a small tenant, and must prove inability to pay, then the Prime Minister would have stood upon firm ground; but, having departed from that position, he could not understand why he refused this Amendment.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, there wore some people who the more they got the more they wanted. With regard to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther), it seemed to him that there was a distinct difference between £100 and £50. If the line was fixed at £50, it would be drawn at the occupying tenant who worked his own land; but if it was drawn at the higher point, then it brought in the men who employed capital and labour, and did not work their own land themselves. If the whole community was to be relieved, then it was essential that there should be some relief for the communities of Scotland and England, where there were great numbers who could not pay their rents. In Ireland there was a certain tenant right, and he differed from the right hon. Gentleman in saying that the present proposal would perpetuate a bad system. On the contrary, it seemed to him that the policy of the Government and the House was to preserve the class of peasant tenants.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the practical defence for this provision was that it met the practical necessities of the case. It was fixed upon in order to give the Land Act of last year a practical chance of working, and the line must be drawn somewhere. Tenants under £50 were in a very different position from those at £100, and the same necessity could not be said to exist for the latter as for the former.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ DR. LYONSproposed to leave out lines 4, 5, and 6, to the word "and," and also the words "not exceeding half the antecedent arrears." It appeared to him that, on coming to deal with the class of tenants under this clause who were now to be put in the position of receiving loans from the State on very favourable terms, there was a totally new consideration introduced. The Committee were dealing, first of all, with a number of persons in a much more independent position in life, who were capable of 945 making contracts, and who, under ordinary circumstances, were fully capable of meeting the whole amount of their debts. These persons, during a course of years, came to owe a considerable amount of money. In favourable years they could be made to pay the whole sum due by the ordinary process of law; but it was implied in this clause that, owing to the special circumstances of the last three or four years, it was necessary for the State to come forward and lend them public money on more favourable terms than they could borrow at in the open market, for the purpose of paying their landlords the arrears due to them. The landlords to whom this money was owing were themselves in a most serious and critical position, not only as to their own means of support, but with regard to the large number they had depending upon them. In fact, they were dealing with a class of people whom it was desirable to maintain in a state of solvency, in order that they, in turn, might meet the obligations they were under to other persons who had claims upon them in regard to mortgages, jointures, settlements, and so forth, and to the large class of poor people depending upon them, such as labourers, farm servants, and so on. The landowners, in fact, were themselves held strictly responsible for paying 20s. in the pound, while the State sought, by this clause, to compel them to take half, or less, of what was due to them by those to whom public loans were made on the easiest possible terms. If the landlords were not paid, there was a very large and important class indirectly belonging to the landed interest who would be left in a position of absolute ruin. The distress experienced by the upper and middle-class owners, and others who were dependent upon rents for their income, was at the present moment extreme, and it was running to a pitch at which it would soon become intolerable. It was imperatively necessary that relief should be given in one way or another to these classes. There could be no doubt, in another point of view, that the most serious results would follow, unless the landed interest were put in a position of solvency at this particular time—he referred to the employment of permanent labourers. In point of principle, he could not see, when public money was lent on the 946 easiest terms, what objection there could be to extending the period of indebtedness beyond one year; but it was a question whether the extension should be to two or three years, and upon that question he was open to give careful consideration to any proposal that might be made. He warned the Commitee that if resident owners, who had, in many instances, cut down their personal and family expenses to the smallest possible scale rather than discharge their permanent hands, were pauperized, hundreds of thousands of unemployed labourers would be found in Ireland during the coming winter; and such a condition of things, he need not remind them, would be most serious. [Cries of "Question !"] Surely, this was the question. There were 70,000 owners of land in Ireland, and if these were left in an impecunious condition, it would be impossible for them to pay the labourers to whom they had been hitherto giving continuous employment. This alone, at the low average of two per head, would represent 140,000 labourers and their families—at the lowest computation, nearly 500,000 of men, women, and children. So that the gravity of the problem could not be over-stated.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, to leave outlines 4, 5, and 6, down to"and."—(Dr. Lyons.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed New Clause."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must confess that he found himself in a position which he had not anticipated when he undertook to meet what he considered to be the general wish of the Committee by proposing the extension contained in this clause. Instead of finding his proposal satisfactory, he found that since he had brought it forward there had arisen up on every side of him proposals for encouraging and transforming the whole of the scheme, which materially increased the difficulties of the position they were placed in. He did not know how to extricate himself from these difficulties; and he certainly should not have undertaken to deal with this matter if he had had the least idea that he would have to encounter these numerous proposals for extension, amounting, as he had said, almost to a transformation 947 of his proposal. He did not think the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) could be serious in what he now proposed.
§ DR. LYONSbegged to inform the right hon. Gentleman that he was perfectly serious in making this proposal; and he had shown the feasibility of meeting the whole case fully, without drawing one shilling from the Public Exchequer, by moneys raised from purely Irish, sources.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was not the case that they were on entirely new ground, because they had the legislation of last year before them, and in that legislation the question of the application of the principle of loan to arrears was considered. All along it was felt that it was necessary to retain a moral check upon the working of this Bill, and consequently they required the tenant to pay one year's rent. The hon. Member (Dr. Lyons) proposed absolutely to dispense with this check in recommending that they should enlarge the boon so as to make it apply to three years instead of one. The hon. Member had a further Amendment, to the effect that if there were 10 years' arrears the State should advance payment for seven years. It seemed to him (Mr. Gladstone) that the barest description of the hon. Member's proposals was quite sufficient to condemn them in the mind of the Committee.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he wished to ask the Government to take into consideration the desirability of including words to the effect that the ton-ant had obtained a receipt in full for such rent. The reason he proposed these words now was not because this part of the Bill was actually the right place where the Amendment should be moved, but because this was a clause analogous to the clause on which it appeared to him necessary to move the Amendment, as he had not been able to move it at the time the original clause was being considered before the Committee, because the attention of the Committee had not at that time been called to what appeared now to be the necessity for the insertion of these words. The reason he wished to press on the Committee the necessity for the insertion of these words was on account of a 948 sentence which the Committee would remember was inadvertently let drop by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant last night, when speaking of an Amendment moved by an hon. Member on the Conservative side of the House, the object of which Amendment was the curtailment of the period during which this Act should be in operation. The right hon. Gentleman had said that—"Tho Committee must remember that a certain amount of time was necessary for the making of preliminary arrangements." Well, these preliminary arrangements the right hon. Gentleman had specified as the payment of the rent in full, the payment of the rent in part, or the abrogation of the total amount of rent, or, as he had said, in some cases the promise of the tenant to pay the rent at some future time. Could the right hon. Gentleman accept these words, or some such words, in the 1st clause, Sub-section (a)?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the object of the noble Lord was to ascertain if the protection contained in the Bill was a real and not a delusive one. Words might be brought up on Report to effect the object of the noble Lord the Member for South Wiltshire.
§ VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEThe right hon. Gentleman has promised to put words in on Report.
§ VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEThen I will move, in line 6, after "aforesaid," insert the words "the tenant has obtained a receipt in full for such rent."
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. GIVANsaid, he did not intend to occupy much of the time of the Committee, inasmuch as the Amendment in his name had already been partly discussed. He regretted that the Prime Minister had looked at that Amendment in such a serious light, because he (Mr. Givan) had thought the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister who, amongst all other Ministers who had occupied his position, was the most anxious to conform to the wishes of the country. This clause was an instance of the truth of this statement, because, seeing that there 949 was a wish that the provisions of this Bill should be extended in some way to tenants whose valuation was above £30, the right hon. Gentleman generously and most willingly framed this clause. But he (Mr. Givan) did not understand the Prime Minister, and he did not think the Committee understood him, to be bound by any words in the Bill, or by any distinct principle in the Bill, if anyone could manage to convince him that that principle or those words were unworkable. He (Mr. Givan) certainly did not understand that the clauses of the Bill of last year, which had so conspicuously failed, were to be introduced into the Bill of this year in the shape of new clauses; and if he had thought so, he should not, for one, have urged the Prime Minister to bring forward the clause. He (Mr. Givan) might point out that in Ulster, and he hoped also in the South and West Ireland of Ireland, the tenant's interest was of substantial value—was a thing that was valuable and real in the holding. Very often, indeed, the value of the tenant right was equal to the landlord's interest in the holding; and it was to be hoped that by the fixing of judicial rents the tenants in the South and West of Ireland would obtain, if they had it not already, as substantial an interest as the tenants of Ulster had. If they took a tenant's holding in Ulster at a rent of £ 10, the least the interest would be worth would be £100, and probably the value would be £200. He would point out to the Committee that the Church Commissioners always collected, and the Land Commission was now actually collecting, the advances made for the purpose of purchases from the tenants with the greatest facility. All it did was to enclose an order to them, and the money was paid into the bank. His suggestion was that the matter should be taken before one or two magistrates to enforce payment in a summary way. He did not think there was any apprehension on the ground stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and he thought it was unjust to give a loan to the tenant and charge it upon the landlord. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would accept his Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, in line 10, after "declare," insert "the tenant's interest in."—(Mr. Givan.)
950§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ VISCOUNT LYMINGTONsaid, it did seem to him that if the clause was to stand and to be really operative at all, it was necessary that some Amendment should be inserted on Report, either that of his hon. Friend sitting next him (Mr. Givan) or that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith). The real point seemed to be this. In Ulster, and in a large part of Leinster, the tenant right, before the passing of the Land Act of 1881, amounted to a very large sum—in some cases almost to the fee-simple of the land. The result of the passing of the Act of last year had been to give increased security to the tenant, and practically to cause the tenant right to increase proportionately in value, both where it had only existed previously to a limited extent, and also where it already amounted to an appreciable and considerable value. Wherever tenant right existed in a substantial shape, arrears of rent were practically, in consequence of the legislation of free sale by the Act of last year, secured to the landlord, and, therefore, the effect would be, unless some Amendment were introduced declaring that it was not the landlord's interest that was to be charged, that the landlord would never come into Court in this matter, and the clause would practically not work at all. He did not wish to state any opinion as to the necessity of the clause; but if it was to stand and be operative, he would suggest to the Prime Minister that he should see his way to the introduction of some such Amendment as he pointed to.
§ MR. MARUMsaid, he regretted very much to find, from the Prime Minister's statement, that hon. Members were arguing against a preconceived opinion. He might say that he had been in negotiation on behalf of two landlords, one in his own county, and one in Queen's County, both of whom had declined to have anything to do with this clause if it passed, and the primary liability were cast upon the landlord. If this liability remained, the clause should be withdrawn. The section would be inoperative, and might as well not be insisted on if the principle he had referred to were adhered to. He would suggest, in order to overcome any difficulty in this 951 matter, that the collection of money should be left to the county cess officer. If it were not collected within six months, then the liability might fall upon the landlord.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the hon. Member did not seem quite to appreciate the object of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman had used the words "the primary liability" of the landlords; but the liability did not primarily rest upon the landlord, but upon the tenant, who would be bound to pay the additional sum representing the interest and principal to the landlord, and, having paid that sum to the landlord, the latter would repay it to the Government, so that really the primary liability was with the tenant. The hon. Member had said that he saw no objection to a public officer receiving the amount, and that if within six months he failed to obtain it, then the liability should fall upon the landlord. That was a matter for the Committee to decide hereafter. All that the Government wanted now to secure was that the money should be paid, and the question of how the payment was to be enforced was a mere matter of detail.
§ MR. GIVANsaid, he wished to relieve the landlord of all liability. Under the clause, as it stood, the landlord was bound, first of all, to collect the instalment of the tenant and pay it to the Land Commission, and, whether the tenant paid or not, the landlord was bound to do so, even if he could not collect his rent. In the next place, it was the first charge upon a landlord's estate, and he questioned very much whether it was a charge upon the tenant's interest at all. He should think not.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that, as the clause stood, it was illusory, for it came to this—that the landlord and tenant might jointly apply to be allowed, in consideration of the payment of rent, to cancel some other rent that was duo. The tenant was supposed to have a valuable tenant right in his property. If this tenant right existed, and if it was an asset over and above the liability of the landlord, the landlord would be more foolish than one would suppose him to be if he concurred in an application to the State for an advance to cancel arrears, and made himself liable for the payment of that advance during a cer- 952 tain period. It was quite certain that the landlord would not, under these circumstances, concur in the advance. He had a right to call upon the tenant to sell the tenant right and pay the debt that was due. The landlord would not concur with the tenant, if there was a balance in his favour, in asking for an advance from the State, for which he—the landlord—was liable, to be repaid in 15 or 35 years. As he had already said, it appeared to him that this clause, as it was drawn, was wholly illusory. The landlord would not join with the tenant in an application for an advance; the tenant would not get the advance, and the landlord would then say—"You must sell." This was a position the landlord would have a perfect right to take up under this clause.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) to make a proposal which, he thought, would wholly meet this difficulty. ["No, no !"] Well, he bowed to the opinion of his hon. Friends, but that had been his view. As to the Arrears Clauses of the Land Act, he was acquainted with a great many landlords and tenants, and had discussed the subject with them, and he could undertake to say that there were very few Members of the House who had had his experience on the subject. He could say this, that the reason the landlords would object to being security for this money was, roughly, because they objected to subsequently levying the interest on the tenant. If they allowed a public officer to make a tenant liable, it was only when the tenant's interest was exhausted that the money would be recoverable from the land. In such a case as that the landlord would concur. The clause would work then; but he did not think it would in its present shape.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, there could be no doubt that the primary liability was thrown upon the holding. It would not only take effect upon the holding, but have priority to every incumbrance upon the holding—all mortgages, annuities, or other charges.
§ MR. SHAWsaid, he did not wonder much at the Government wishing to have as much security as they could, and, if they could, to have the landlord between them and the tenant. He had had a large amount of experience as to the 953 anxiety of the tenant farmers of Ireland to discharge their liabilities, and he was sure that any money they borrowed in that way they would be most anxious to pay. It struck him that the proposal of the hon. Member opposite would meet the clause, and, as he understood it, the Government were disposed to accept some such proposal. The landlord would really undertake no liability. If some public officer was bound to exhaust the assets of the tenant before the landlord was applied to, he could not see how the landlord could suffer at all. The Government had made up their minds not to change the substance of the clause, and he thought it would be a great pity if they passed it without amending it in the way pointed out.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, that in 99 cases out of 100 there would be no difficulty in getting money out of the tenants; but why, in the hundredth case, the liability should be thrown on the landlord, he could not see. Who was mainly responsible? Why, the person whose security was given for the money. It was the person whose security was given for the money—that was to say, the landlord whose estate was charged with the payment of the debt. He hoped that the Committee would look at this question from the point of view of justice and common sense, and would remember what took place last year. Last year a certain interest in the land was given to the tenant. No doubt, that interest varied from an equivalent, in value of the holding to somewhat less than the value of the holding, and it did not seem to him, therefore, to be just that they should come upon the landlord for the arrears of rent. It did not seem to him to be just to relieve this valuable property from all charge, in consideration of the landlord having a small moiety.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, this was a matter of considerable difficulty, and the Government had attended very carefully to all that had been said upon it. He thought the suggestions more or less which had been contained in the speeches—first, of the hon. Member opposite, and further, in that of his right hon. Friend, and in those of two hon. Members below the Gangway, the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Galway (Colonel Nolan) and the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw)—would 954 afford a basis on which the Government might consent to frame their clause. But the clause could not be amended in that sense at present. The Government could not undertake to amend the clause in the rapid process of passing it through Committee; but they could undertake to introduce the necessary Amendments on Report. He did not think, after what had been said, that there could be any mistake as to the basis on which the Government intended to frame the Amendment, The application would be made to the tenant, and the public officer, who would be the best suited for making the application, was, as the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Marum) had pointed out, to exhaust the tenant's interest before any liability came upon the holding itself—that was to say, upon the landlord. On that basis the Government would undertake to frame the clause; but, undoubtedly, it would be better to allow the section to pass now. The Government might withdraw it; but it would be advantageous to pass it now, the hon. Member opposite, seeing that the substance of his object was sufficiently gained, withdrawing his Amendment.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked whether the Prime Minister was willing to say that when the advance was made it should be charged, in the first place, on the tenant's interest?
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that when the tenant's interest was exhausted the charge would come upon the landlord. But would not a question arise in a case where the tenant might be sold up, and in which, as a consequence, he could not continue upon his holding?
§ MR. GIVANsaid, that he was quite sure that what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister desired was to give every relief he could by this clause. He thought the suggestion which had been made a very good one; and, therefore, he should be very happy to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he did not see that there was any great difference between the one proposal and the other. If they made the landlord liable in the 955 first place, he would have to pay and recover from the tenant. If they made the tenant liable, and then, if he did not pay, imposed the liability on the landlord, they would give the tenant an incentive not to pay, because he would know that in his default the landlord would have to discharge the debt. This was the reason of the failure of the clause of last year, and he did not see that the change introduced into the present measure was so remarkable that it carried out the idea of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan). A tenant, after having his arrears paid under this clause might, a couple of years afterwards, put up his holding for sale, and it would be made known to the public that the holding, in addition to rent, was subject to the repayment of a certain amount to the State. But the auctioneer, in putting up the holding, would say—"The liability for the repayment of this sum to the State falls in the first place on the tenant; but, after all, the landlord is liable—you need not mind it." The result would be that the incoming tenant would consider himself justified in refusing to pay, and the onus would fall on the landlord. If the tenant really had an interest it ought to be charged, otherwise the landlord might be defeated in the recovery of his rent from the tenant by the statement that he—the tenant—was unable to pay. The State was not expected to have any bowels of compassion; but the landlord was always supposed to have, and if he did not show it, he was threatened in such a manner as to make him forego his just claim.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONasked whether they were to understand that in the Amendment on Report this charge would not be added to the half-year's rent, but that the charge would be a distinct one calculated by the local authority?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had now to ask the Government to substitute for the period of 35 years mentioned in the clause, the period of 15 years. The reason he moved the Amendment was this. The clause, as he understood it, was intended to be a boon to the tenant in consequence of a calamity he—the tenant—had sustained from bad seasons; the gift was made solely in consequence 956 of the misfortunes of the past two or three years; but there was no reason to doubt that within the next 35 years the same state of things would occur again. He wished to put into the clause the same period as was introduced into the Bill of last year by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and which was held to be a sufficient period during which a personal liability incurred by the tenant should be discharged. It would be a great misfortune if the tenants of Ireland were led to suppose that the State was to come to their aid in every period of drought or run of bad seasons. This Bill ought to be considered a peculiarly exceptional one; and unless a reasonable period were fixed as a limit for the discharge of the liability, there would be repetitions of application for the dole it was now proposed to serve out to the Irish tenants, and great demoralization would be the result.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, in line 12, leave out the words "thirty-five years" and insert "fifteen years,"—(Mr. W. H Smith,)— instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'thirty-five years' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that this and the subject of the next Amendment, which was to substitute "£8 10s." for "£5" had been carefully considered. It was felt that "£8 10.s." would be too serious a burden—they had been so impressed with that argument that they had decided upon the more moderate sum and longer period.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Government had assented to the principle that the tenant should be primarily liable, and they would, therefore, he thought, see the reasonableness of not exceeding, to any considerable extent at any rate, this term of 15 years during which the loan should be held by the tenant. After that period, reductions of rent might take place, and the whole of the conditions under which the land was held might become altered. That was an element in the consideration of the matter which the Government could hardly have considered. Of course, a tenant would rather pay 5 per cent than 8½ per cent of the advance; but now that they were making this advance, they must be careful that they were not 957 unduly burdening future tenants for the benefit of the tenants of the moment. The money would, perhaps, have to be paid back by a tenant of the future. He hoped the Government would reconsider this point.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Government had better withdraw their proposal.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there was no connection between this point and the judicial rent, and the Government could not accept the Amendment. There might be no judicial rents on some of the farms if the tenants were satisfied with the position of the landlords—as some of them seemed to be. But, even if there was a judicial rent, there was no connection between the levying of the rent and this clause. If the Amendment were adopted, the sum might be larger than the tenant would be able to stand—especially the smaller tenant. The Government were satisfied with the security as it existed in the Bill.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHasked whether in the case of every failure of crops there was to be a tribunal of this kind appealed to to pay a tenant's arrears of rent? He could not understand how the Chancellor of the Exchequer could propose that a man who had received a loan from the State should be allowed 35 years to repay it. This was one of the most extraordinary financial proposals he (Mr. W. H. Smith) had ever heard.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was making one of the most extraordinary financial objections that could be submitted from the other side of the House, seeing that they were proposing that the charge should be put upon the tenant instead of upon the landlord.
§ MR. MAGNIACopposed the Amendment.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, this Bill was supposed to be a cure for the serious evils existing in Ireland; but he failed to see the policy, in making a cure, of keeping the sore open longer than was necessary. If the measure was to do good, they must avoid, as much as possible, making future generations look back at what was now done. It would be well, as far as possible, to teach future generations to forget the calamitous times of the present.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the difficulty he felt in the matter was this—that the advance might be made to a perfectly solvent tenant. As the clause stood, there was nothing to guide the Land Commission as to the class of persons to whom the advance of 35 years should be made; and, so far as they could see, the advance might be made to a perfectly solvent tenant. He would suggest that, if the clause was to be agreed to, there should be instructions given to the Commissioners that the advance should only be made in cases of necessity, and when it appeared to them that the tenant right was a sufficient security.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that it must be manifest to the Government that the clause had not been received with enthusiasm in any part of the House. On the contrary, some of the Supporters of the Government had taken serious objection to its most cardinal provisions. The manner in which it dealt with the tenant right had been severely criticized by hon. Gentlemen opposite; and, moreover, serious objection had been taken in other quarters to the forced period of 35 years prescribed for the repayment of the loans in the interests of the British taxpayers. On the whole, views had been expressed with regard to the clause which he thought must have left on the minds of the Government the impression that it had been hastily drawn. The Prime Minister himself had said more than once in the course of the discussion that if he had had any idea of the objections that would be urged against it he would never have proposed it to the Committee. For these reasons, and seeing that there were other matters to be dealt with before the present stage of the Bill was closed, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would obviate the further consumption of time by withdrawing this ill-digested clause.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped the Committee would not take the same view as the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. The clause only took effect in cases where the landlord and tenant agreed to make application to the Commission for a loan. It was difficult to understand the objection to an arrangement of that kind; but it must be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman objected to the whole Bill. He thought 959 the Government had met the discussion of the clause very fairly, and he trusted the proposal would be agreed to by the Committee.
§ MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, he should vote for the Amendment. He thought the period of 35 years was one that was likely to induce landlords and tenants to agree to take the loans, because it involved them in no very heavy personal liability. If the period were 15 years, they would probably think three times before they applied for the money. As guardians of the public purse, he said the Committee were justified in making the terms so hard that the loans would not be availed of except where there was the strongest reason for it.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYwas understood to say that the small instalments required for the repayment of the loan would make it positively to the interest of the landlord and tenant to conspire to obtain an advance.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 204; Noes 98: Majority 106.—(Div. List, No. 275.)
§
Amendment proposed to New Clause,
At the end of the first paragraph to add—"Provided, That on any transfer of the holding by sale the principal sum and interest remaining due to the Land Commission shall he paid out of the purchase-money to the Land Commission."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could see no objection to the adoption of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The matter involved was one that he thought should be cleared up finally when the opportunity was offered by the sale of the tenant right. The only liberty, however, which the Government wished to reserve to themselves was to consider what would be the best wording for the Amendment, between that time and the Report.
MR. GORSTsaid, the Amendment was incorrectly worded. Instead of "in any transfer of the holding," the Amendment should run—"in any transfer of the tenant's interest in the holding," &c.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "transfer," 960 to add "of the tenant's interest in."—(Mr. Gorst.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. GREGORYsuggested that the Amendment should express that the amount uncovered by the sale remained a charge on the land.
§ MR. SHAWsaid, he hoped the Government would leave a discretion with the Commissioners in this matter. Unless they were empowered to make concessions, the unfortunate tenants would, in some cases, find themselves tied to their holdings.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ MR. MARUMsaid, he had an Amendment to propose, the object of which was to place the tenant who was sold up, with the assent of the landlord, in the same position as the tenant who was evicted, so far as the benefit of the clause was concerned.
§
Amendment proposed to the New Clause,
In line 19, after the word "holding," to insert the words "where any tenancy has been sold to the landlord or other vendor, under any judgment obtained at the suit of such landlord, for rent due to him there out, and such landlord, or such vendor, with his assent, re-conveys such tenancy to the former tenant thereof, or such tenant is otherwise reinstated by such landlord, the provisions of this Act, in reference to a holding valued at not more than thirty pounds, or in reference to a holding valued at a sum not exceeding fifty pounds, as the case may be, shall apply, notwithstanding any merger, as if no such judgment had been obtained, and whether an eviction in pursuance thereof may or may not have taken place."—(Mr. Marum.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the Committee would recollect that upon the Compulsory Clause the Government had agreed to accept an Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and to bring up a section on Report. That section, he believed, would meet the wishes of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny County. He supposed the Government had no objection to the proposal of his hon. Friend?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that part of the question involved in the proposal of the hon. Member had 961 already been discussed in Committee, and considered by Her Majesty's Government. As had been correctly stated by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Sir. Parnell), they had promised that a clause should be brought up on Report, in which the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford would be embodied. It would be to the effect that if the landlord expressly agreed to reinstate a tenant who had been sold up for debt, then the tenant should be in the same position as if he had been sold up for rent. But the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) now proposed to extend that principle to tenants of holdings valued at £50, which was quite a different thing. The effect of this would be that the tenant would go back to his tenancy with a load of debt round his neck, or, at any rate, that he would be encouraged to remain in a state of debt. The Government could not, therefore, accept the hon. Gentleman's proposal, which was entirely different from that which, on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wexford, they had agreed to in principle.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he could not see on what grounds the Government objected to this Amendment. If it was right that the tenant who had not been sold out should, if the landlord consented, have the benefit of this clause, why should it not be right that the tenant who had been sold out should receive the same benefit? There ought to be no difference between the tenant who had been sold out and the tenant who had not been sold out. The matter simply stood in this way—that if a landlord agreed to reinstate a tenant who had been sold out, the State should pay a year's rent as in the case of any other tenant. That was all his hon. Friend asked, and he (Mr. Parnell) thought the request was a very reasonable one.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that in the case of gift they freed the tenant and started him a free man; in the case of loan they brought him back and started him with a weight round his neck. The conditions were entirely different, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, with great respect to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, he saw no difference whatever whether the ad- 962 vance be by way of loan or gift. When the landlord and tenant stipulated with the Government that the tenant should be put back and that the loan should be a charge upon the holding, the State was in the same position as if the advance had been a gift. With respect to the weight round a man's neck, surely the landlord was the best judge. The State was as safe in the one case as in the other; the landlord would take the weight and the responsibility, and the Government would have as much security as they would have in the case of gift. The tenant would be just as free in the one case as in the other. The landlord took a year's rent; took a loan from the Government, and stipulated to pay it back. He (Mr. Synan) was at a loss to understand how the right hon. and learned Gentleman made a distinction between the one case and the other so far as the State was concerned. The State would simply get back its money, and would have ample security.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 222: Majority 184.—(Div. List, No. 276.)
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, it was now nearly 1 o'clock in the morning, and as the Speaker was to be in the Chair at 12 o'clock that day, and as, moreover, there was some very important Business to transact before they separated, he begged leave to move that the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Alexander.)
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought they ought to continue the Committee until 1 o'clock, and he was sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not like to deviate from the general practice.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had hoped that they would have got through the Bill that night. He trusted, however, there would be no impediment to the Report of the Bill being taken on Thursday. He might suggest that the Bill, so far as it had progressed through Committee, should be reprinted; an Order of the House would facilitate that course if made that night. If his suggestion were adopted the Bill would be in the hands of Members to-morrow, 963 Amendments could be put down, and the Report of the Bill could then be taken on Thursday, and the third reading, as originally arranged, on Friday. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would state to the Committee whether he would be prepared to adopt that suggestion?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, if that course were agreeable to the House, it would be very convenient and advantageous. He quite agreed with the general sketch of Business the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) had given.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, there were a good many Amendments that the Government had to place on the Paper. He assumed that those Amendments were quite ready, and that there would be no objection to their being circulated to-morrow along with the Bill as reprinted. It was necessary that they should have those Amendments in their hands as early as possible. He supposed the Committee would be resumed at 12 o'clock to-morrow, and that the remaining Amendments would not occupy long in consideration. It should be understood that they should have the Government Amendments before them to-day in some shape or other, for they would necessarily require some consideration.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he would like to say a word in regard to the way in which their Business was managed. The Tories moved to report Progress at 7 o'clock for the purpose of killing the Local Option Motion, which would have been taken at 9 o'clock, and they now moved to report Progress in order to kill the Contagious Diseases Motion to-morrow; thereby wasting two days of that House. If Irish Members had ventured to do anything of the sort, they would, in the words of the Prime Minister, have been subjected to a very summary process.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that before this Motion was disposed of, he would like to ask the Government whether they would not reconsider the subject of the last Amendment between now and Report? The matter was one of considerable importance, and he scarcely thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, in replying to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), had quite appreciated the scope of the Amendment. 964 This clause, as it stood, provided that whenever, in the case of any tenant evicted for non-payment of rent since the 1st of May, 1880, the landlord agreed to reinstate such tenant on the terms in this section set forth, this section should apply as if such tenant had not been evicted. The matter which he hoped the Government would reconsider before Report was, that the same privilege which they extended to tenants who had been evicted since the 1st May, 1880, should also be extended to tenants who had been evicted and sold out. There was no practical difference between the situation of the two classes of tenants; the one class had been evicted b ejectment for non-payment of rent, and the other class had been evicted by being sold out. There was, practically, no difference whatever between the rights of the two classes of tenants so far as they came under the provisions of this Bill. He did trust the Government would give this matter, which was a matter of some practical importance, a fair consideration between this and Report, with a view to see whether they could not include this class of tenants—the tenants who had been sold out—in, the operation of the Bill.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERasked leave to withdraw his Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. M'COANproposed, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 45, after "holdings," to insert—
Provided, That in case the landlord shall omit or refuse to join with the tenant in an application for such loan, the Land Commission, if it consider such omission or refusal to he unreasonable, may, nevertheless, on the sole application of the tenant, make the required advance, limited as aforesaid, and charge it upon the holding as hereinbefore provided.He would add nothing whatever to what he thought the almost perfect agreement of testimony as to the destructive effect the insistance upon the joint application of the landlord and tenant would have upon the useful operation of the Bill. They had the evidence of Members from the North of Ireland, as well as from the South of Ireland, that that would actually make the Loan Clauses of the Act nugatory altogether. That was the experience under the similar provision in the Land Act of last year, and if that feature was imported into this Bill the consequences would be pretty much the 965 same. The Prime Minister had voluntarily declared his intention to adhere to that feature of the Bill. That being so, it would be useless for him to contend against the right hon. Gentleman; but he ventured to offer the right hon. Gentleman a sort of compromise. The discretion which he proposed to vest in the Land Commission was perfectly analogous to that which was given in every other part of the Bill. If the Commissioners found that the grounds of the landlord's refusal were unreasonable, they should have power to pass over his head and make a loan on the application of the tenant himself. He could not understand what satisfactory answer could be given to that compromise. Some objection might be taken to the provision involved in the closing words of the Amendment—namely, that the Land Commissioners might charge the loan on the holding, or, in other words, that the landlord, and not the tenant, should be made responsible for the loan. He would ask the Government to consent to the Amendment, if the provisions should be either to hold the landlord responsible for the repayment of the loan, or should make the rental dischargeable.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Government could not accept the Amendment. The point had been raised at an earlier period by the hon. Member for Monaghan, and the Government then stated their views. They had conceded largely; but they must hold that there must be a joint application by landlord and tenant.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proposed new Clause be added to the Bill."
§ MR. WARTONwished to suggest to the Government, before the clause was passed, to consider the possibility of some scheme which might enable the repayment of advances before the time had expired. He thought it would be well for the financial interests of the country that there should be some means of repaying a loan before the limit of time was reached, and some discount or reduction made in consideration of such payment.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Government were always perfectly ready to re- 966 ceive repayments, and there would be no difficulty on that account.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ New Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had no objection to the Motion.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.