§ [EIGHTH NIGHT.]
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ MR. ERRINGTONsaid, the clause he had put upon the Paper was one which provided that—
When, on application by the tenant, the first preliminary condition under the first Clause of this Act is proved to the satisfaction of the Land Commission, or, on payment into court before the Land Commission by the tenant of one year's rent of his holding, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to issue and renew from time to time, for such period as they may consider reasonable for deciding the application before them, an injunction restraining or suspending all proceedings for recovering the arrears of rent accrued previously to the year expiring as aforesaid: Provided, That no such injunction shall be held to interfere with or limit the landlord's right to proceed for the recovery of rent or arrears which may have become due subsequently to the year expiring as aforesaid.The principle of this clause had been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and Notice had been given of a new clause last night for the purpose of carrying it out; therefore he did not propose to move his clause now; but he should like to point out to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland that he did not think the clause of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given Notice would quite carry out what he (Mr. Errington) was desirous of securing— namely, that there should be some guarantee on the payment into Court by the tenant of a year's rent of the holding. He thought it would be seen, on reference to the new clause of which Notice had been given, that it did not quite carry out this object. Of course, it would not be in Order on his part to enter into a discussion at that moment of the clause of which the right hon. and learned 977 Gentleman had given Notice; and he would, therefore, only ask his right hon. and learned Friend to consider the point, and perhaps to-morrow he would be able to make a statement with regard to it.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he should be glad to look into the matter. A clause had been drawn which was intended to carry out thoroughly the undertaking that had been given to the Committee, and if it were found that it had failed to do this, he would see that it was made more clear. There had certainly been no intention to do otherwise than fulfil the promise that had been given.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he desired to move, on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), the insertion of the following clause after Clause 2:—
(Power to Land Commission Court pending applications to fix fair rent to make orders regarding arrears of rent.)(1.) Where, in pursuance of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' any application has been made to the court, in the said Act mentioned, to fix the fair rent of a holding, and such application is pending at the date of the passing of this Act, or where any such application shall be made after the passing of this Act, the court in fixing the judicial rent may, on the application of the tenant, make an order declaring that all arrears of rent due in respect of the holding which have accrued, or shall accrue, due between the date of the application to fix the fair rent and the date when the judicial rent first becomes payable, shall be computed at the rate of the judicial rent, and on such order being made, and on payment by the tenant in respect of such arrears of such amount as would have been payable in respect of same, if a rent equal to the judicial rent only, had been payable in respect of the holding, as from the period commencing at the rent-day next preceding the date of the application to the court, all such arrears of rent shall be released and extinguished.(2.) Where any application to fix the fair rent of a holding is at the date of the passing of this Act, or hereafter shall be pending, and prior to the final order of the court thereon, proceedings (whether by ejectment for nonpayment of rent, or by action for rent, or otherwise) have been or shall be taken against the tenant of such holding, in respect, wholly or partly, of arrears of rent which have accrued or shall accrue due on any rent day or days, the rent accruing due whereon is liable to be affected by such order, the court before which the proceedings to enforce payment of such rent are pending shall, upon the application of such tenant, and upon such terms as to costs as may seem just, postpone or suspend such proceedings, so far as they relate to or are founded upon any arrears of rent accruing due on any such rent day or days as aforesaid, until the termination 978 of the proceedings on the application to fix the fair rent of the holding, on payment by the tenant in respect of such arrears, of such amount as the court shall deem just, not exceeding the amount which would have been payable by the tenant in respect thereof had the annual rent of the holding been equal to the annual value thereof, as valued under the Acts relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland.He was sorry his hon. Friend was not present in his place, because as the clause was one which that hon. Gentleman had placed on the Paper he would have been able to argue it much more fully than he (Mr. Biggar) could be expected to do; but, at the same time, he begged, on behalf of his hon. Friend, to move the clause. The object of the clause, as far as he understood the matter, was to provide that, where an application was made for the fixing of a fair rent, the arrears between the date of the application and the fixing of the judicial rent should be computed at the same rate as the judicial rent. The reason why it had been necessary to propose this clause was that there was some ambiguity occasioned by the construction of different sections of the Land Act, because upon one section it was held that the date of the fair rent should be from the gale day before the application to fix the fair rent; while under another it was held that the fair rent should not commence until the gale day after the date at which the Sub-Commissioners gave their decision. The result of these contradictory constructions of the two sections was that the Sub-Commissioners had given very contradictory judgments with regard to this question, and these judgments had given rise to a number of appeals to the Land Commissioners, which would not otherwise have taken place. The tenants argued, on the one hand, that the rent payable for the period subsequent to the application, and up to the time of the judgment fixing the fair rent, should be based on the amount determined as the judicial rent; while the landlords, on the other hand, argued that where the tenant had proved to the satisfaction of the Sub-Commissioners that the rent ought to be reduced, he should not be entitled to the reduction for the period prior to the judgment; but that the rent down to that moment should be payable according to the rate of the former contract. It was very 979 desirable that the law on this point should be laid down in such a way as to render it perfectly clear as to this point, because the cost of an appeal was a matter of considerable moment, and, in many of these cases, might amount to more than the total amount in dispute between the tenant and the landlord. Let them take a case where, as very often happened, the reduction made in the rent did not exceed £1 or £2, or, at most, the sum of £5, the expense of an appeal would to each party be very much in excess of the difference between the former rent and the fair rent fixed by the Sub-Commissioners as the judicial rent. He therefore begged to move the clause which stood in the name of his hon. Friend.
§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the point raised by the clause just moved was one that had been frequently discussed by the House, and always with the same result. He wished to point out to hon. Members that the Bill now under discussion was not a Bill for the Amendment of the Land Act of 1881, under which it was expressly provided that the rent fixed by the Sub-Commissioners as a fair rent should take effect and commence on the rent day next succeeding the decision given by the Court. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) proposed, by the clause he had brought forward, to alter this, and to provide that where an application was made to fix a fair rent, and a fair rent was subsequently fixed, the fair rent should not commence with the gale day next following the decision of the Court, as provided by the Land Act, but that it should have a retrospective effect, and should cover the period between the date of the application and the time at which the fair rent was judicially fixed. The question was one that had been frequently discussed; and as often as this proposition had been made the House had declined to give its assent to it, on the ground that this Bill was not intended to be an Amendment of the Land Act of 1881. The matter was discussed fully when the 980 Land Act itself was before the House, and reasons were then given for the way in which the point was decided; and, consequently, as it had been disposed of then, and since the Land Act was passed, and the law was fully understood to be that the fair rent should be payable from the gale day subsequent to its being fixed by the Court, he hoped the Committee would adhere to this decision, and that the determination come to by the House upon the subject would not be altered.
§ MR. DALYsaid the delay which had occurred in obtaining a settlement of questions arising in reference to this matter had been entirely attributable to the action of Her Majesty's Government in having provided insufficient means for carrying out the object they had in view; and the result was that, owing to the fact that the Government had not made proper instruments for dealing with the case3 that required to be disposed of, large numbers of cases had failed to come in under the Act of 1881. If they considered the equity of the matter, it would be seen that, because the Government had not provided sufficient facilities for getting fair rents fixed, the tenants would be called upon to pay arrears under the old system of unfair rent. Supposing, for instance, a man had been in the habit of paying a rental of £35, and the Sub-Commissioners decided that, according to the principles of fairness, the rent should be reduced to £25, but owing to the want of proper facilities the judgment of the Court was delayed for a considerable period, the collector when he came round would say—"It is quite true that your rent will, in future, be £25, as it ought to have been at the first; but, at the same time, we must compel you to pay the extra £10 for arrears." If they had regard to the object of the Land Act, it would be conceded that it was intended to settle the relations of landlord and tenant on the principle of fairness and justice, and to bring peace and quietness to the land; but he would ask how could they expect to produce these results when the tenantry knew that they had to pay what the Government officers declared to be unjust. In his opinion, the position the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had assumed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government with re- 981 gard to this question, was perfectly indefensible.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, by the construction they had put upon the Land Act of last Session, the Commissioners had decided that where an application was made to fix a fair rent on the first occasion on which the Court sat, the judicial rent should date from the date of that application, and hence it followed that a large number of tenants who were able to apply to the Court to fix a fair rent at the time of the first sitting came within that construction, especially as that period had been extended, by special order of the Court, for a further period of about three weeks, and all the fair rents fixed upon applications made during that period were to date from the time of the application; but with regard to the whole of the other tenants who had applied since, and also with regard to those who might apply hereafter, the rent fixed as a fair rent would commence from the rent day following the application to the Court. The Amendment involved in this clause was a very serious one, and it was intended to remedy one of those defects in the Act of last Session which had tended more than anything else to prevent many landlords—he would not say all of them —offering a reasonable settlement to their tenants. The matter stood in this way—the landlord who was the owner of an estate, as to which it might be reasonably supposed that the rents would be reduced on application to the Court, would be in this position—that by refusing to come to a settlement with his tenants out of Court he would be entitled to charge the old rack-rental until the gale day subsequent to the decision of the Court; and, therefore, it would follow that many tenants—-vast numbers of tenants—who might reasonably expect the Court to reduce their rents, but who had not yet applied to the Court owing to the hopelessness of any expectation of the Court being able to reach their cases for a long time to come, would have to pay the rack rent they had hitherto been charged down to the period when they might be able to get a decision from the Court. He assumed that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had given some consideration to this matter, and if Her Majesty's Government could not see their way to the acceptance of this 982 clause, he hoped they would be able to announce that it was their intention next Session to remedy the crying defect he had pointed out in the Act of last year. He trusted the Committee would presently hear an announcement to this effect from a responsible Member of the Government, as such a statement would, for all practical purposes, amount to the same thing as the insertion of the clause moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), because those landlords who had not yet come to a settlement with their tenants, but who were still holding out and refusing a reasonable arrangement, would thus be made to see that they would have nothing to gain by holding out any longer, and might, therefore, be induced to adjust and reduce their rents in accordance with the standard of fair rent as settled by the Court for holdings on the neighbouring estates. Therefore, he trusted that even if Her Majesty's Government could not possibly see their way to the acceptance of the clause proposed by his hon. Friend at the present moment, they would, at least, be in a position to announce their intention next Session to legislate, by way of Amendment to the Land Act, in such a manner as to enable all the tenants to be placed on the same basis, whether they applied to the Court at its first sitting or not. He might add that no one ever anticipated that the Court of the Land Commission would have given such a decision as would have rendered it necessary to bring forward this clause, otherwise he thought it highly probable that a vast number more tenants would have made their applications on the occasion of the first sitting of the Court, so as to have made sure of the advantage to be thus obtained. That decision had been arrived at on a purely technical construction of two sections of the Land Act that were placed very far apart, and it had certainly never previously occurred to the legal mind that the Land Commissioners would hold that those tenants who applied to the Court in the first instance would have their rents fixed from the date of the application, while those who did not do so would be placed at a decided disadvantage. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would make some announcement to the Committee that would have the effect of facilitating 983 a settlement between land lord and tenant on the basis suggested by this clause.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had dealt with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) as if it were outside the scope and object of the present Bill; but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman examined it more closely, he would perceive that it only applied to arrears, and, therefore, was within the purview of the measure under discussion by the Committee. If they wanted to amend the Land Act they must amend it for all purposes—present and future; but the clause moved by his hon. Friend only applied to a year's rent as far as arrears went, and provided that the judicial rent should be made the basis on which the arrears due between the date of the application and the date of the judicial rent being fixed should be computed at the rate of the judicial rent, and not at the rate of the old rack-rental. Therefore, the Amendment clearly came within the scope of this Bill, and the objection taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was without foundation. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant ought, therefore, to apply himself to the question, could he accept the present clause and allow the arrears accruing during the period stated to be discharged on the basis of the judicial rent as fixed by the Court, and not on the rack-rental previously exacted from the tenant?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he hoped the discussion of this clause would not be carried much further, as the issue had already been put on the right basis by the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Member who had just spoken. He (Mr. Trevelyan) did not deny that, technically speaking, the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) came within the scope of the present Bill; but it was one of such a character that it could not be accepted alone, because in accepting it Her Majesty's Government would have to admit a principle which would practically open up a most important Amendment of the Land Act of 1881. The Bill before the Committee had boon introduced for the purpose of dealing with a limited class of arrears in a very special manner; and as far as the Amendment actually touched 984 the matter, to the best of his belief it had already been discussed and disposed of by the Committee, and was now brought forward for the purpose, as had been expressed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, of extracting an announcement from the Government in reference to some future action with regard to the Land Act, and the Arrears Question at large. If it were right, as was the accepted rule, that an Amendment should always be cognate to the Bill on which it was proposed, he must say that, in his opinion, it would be admitting a very dangerous principle to hold that an announcement on a particular measure might be made that was not cognate to that measure, and even if he felt competent at that moment— as, in fact, he did not—to make an announcement seriously affecting the working of the Land Act, he certainly should not make it under the circumstances. The point involved in the Amendment was one of those matters that ought to be brought up in the House at the time the Prime Minister might propose to consider the principle of the Land Act. He would consult the Prime Minister on the subject; but he hoped the hon. Member for the City of Cork would take it from him (Mr. Trevelyan) that Her Majesty's Government were in no way committed by what had passed to-day, and that he could make no acknowledgment in reference to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, or the Amendment, than that the matter which had been put before the Committee should be considered.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had not, either directly or indirectly, given any undertaking in reference to this matter. If there was one thing that was more deadly than another to the prospect of anything like a settlement of Irish affairs, it was the constant use of vague, uncertain, and ambiguous words by Members of Her Majesty's Government, such as that they might consider, or possibly would consider, or might hereafter reconsider something or other. The House had had an immense amount of this during the last year. The Prime Minister had allowed hon. Members to extract from him, on different occasions, vague, ambiguous, and uncertain words, which had had more to do with keep- 985 ing Ireland in a state of perpetual hot water than anything else that could be possibly imagined or conceived. An attempt had been made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to extract from Her Majesty's Government a further pledge that they would reconsider an important provision in the Land Act of last year. If any vague words giving currency to such an idea were to be uttered by a responsible Minister of the Crown, he (Mr. Gibson) really trembled for the result. They all knew how the agitation had been kept up among the tenants, and the way in which the tenants were stimulated to go on and endeavour to obtain further concessions; and he (Mr. Gibson) had not a shadow of doubt that every rash and inconsiderate word uttered by any responsible Minister in his place in that House in reference to considering, or reconsidering, Amendments of the Land Act, would be made use of in the coming Recess as an incentive to further agitation and discontent with the view of procuring further concessions from Her Majesty's Government. He was glad, therefore, on the present occasion, to be able to take distinct notice of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had given no word of encouragement in reference to the important question raised by the Amendment. That Amendment was one—he did not here go into the question whether it was in Order or not, as that was not the point—of great importance, and was one that ought to be met on its own merits or demerits, and not to be used as a peg on which to hang the materials for further legislation.
§ MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he thought the language just used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was more likely to promote agitation in Ireland than any promise that might be made by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the question raised by this Amendment. He (Mr. Macfarlane) appealed to Her Majesty's Government to consider the substantial grievance that existed in regard to this matter, as it would be much more suitable to the feeling of the Irish people that they should have some assurance that the Government would consider this grievance than that they would adopt the advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that further consideration should be given to the 986 subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was, no doubt, consistent in his view, as he had always contended that the Irish tenants had no grievance; but Her Majesty's Government had not adopted that view as embodying a true statement of the case. He (Mr. Macfarlane) would suggest that, for the purpose of allaying the reasonable agitation existing among the tenants, a few words containing a promise of a definite kind —he did not wish them to be indefinite— that they would in the future deal with this very serious grievance, would have a good effect in Ireland.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, Her Majesty's Government had been asked by the hon. Member for the City of Cork to enter into a pledge of a very extensive character, which might have the effect of giving rise to further agitation, that they would, in the course of a future Session, undertake to deal with the question raised by the Amendment. He hoped the Government would decline to make any such promise.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he had certainly been very much surprised at the tone and character of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). So far from the announcement which he (Mr. Parnell) had thought might be made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant being likely to be attended with a renewal of agitation in Ireland, it would have a directly contrary effect. What he (Mr. Parnell) had thought as to this subject was, that a statement made by some responsible Member of Her Majesty's Government, that they would legislate next Session in such a way as to induce those landlords—those rack-renting landlords— who were now refusing any concession to their tenants, to concede that which, if the Court were to reach their cases, would be granted through the action of the Court; and he had pointed out that, owing to a provision in the Act of last Session, tenants who had not applied to the Court in the first instance were placed in the position that they would have to continue to pay rack rents until the Courts were able to adjudicate on their cases. He had also expressed his belief that this provision in the Act of last Session was keeping thousands upon. thousands of tenants from making ap- 987 plication to the Court, and inducing them to rely on other means and methods, such as the agitation in which they had hitherto been engaged, for obtaining such a reduction of rents as the spirit of the Act of last Session entitled them to expect, hut which they were unable to obtain owing to the defect which existed in its provisions, and which his (Mr. Parnell's) Amendment sought to remedy. He would put it to the Committee whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had a right to get up, and, in a speech such as he had made, mainly consisting of platitudes, accuse him (Mr. Parnell) of seeking to perpetuate and foment agitation by asking Her Majesty's Government to make an announcement as to the course they proposed to take in regard to the subject of this Amendment? He could not understand why, if Her Majesty's Government had made up their minds on this matter, they should not be in a position to make the announcement he had asked for; and he should be inclined to think, although he did not wish to press his opinion against that of the Government, that the present occasion was a very proper one for the making of such an announcement. The question he wished to ask was, did Her Majesty's Government think that the judicial rent ought to date from the date of the application; and, if so, wore they prepared to introduce legislation in the course of the ensuing Session that would give effect to this view? Moreover, did they think that such legislation should have a retrospective effect, supposing an Amendment of the Land Act to be introduced next Session, so that those tenants who applied to the Court previous to such legislation should have the advantage of the Act as well as those who came forward at the time of the first sitting of the Court? He could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) that, in his (Mr. Parnell's) judgment, and in the judgment of those who were best qualified to speak in regard to this matter, such an announcement as he had asked for, coming from Her Majesty's Government, would do more to restore tranquillity to Ireland, and to bring about voluntary arrangements out of Court between landlords and tenants, than any other course that could be taken. He regretted exceed- 988 ingly that this question had had to be brought on at a Wednesday's Sitting, when, in the nature of the case, it could not be expected that the Prime Minister would be in his place. They were in a difficulty at the present moment. They were ignorant of the intentions of the Government, and, under these circumstances, he (Mr. Parnell), and those with whom he acted, would be obliged to press the Amendment before the Committee to a division; hut if they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant what he had hoped to hear, they might have dispensed with the necessity for a division. Even now, if an announcement could be made that would be of a satisfactory character, they might he able to pass on to other matters. The question was one of very great importance, and ought not to he lightly dismissed by Her Majesty's Government; and he certainly thought the Committee was entitled to receive some definite announcement upon it from some responsible Minister.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, lie had expected that there would be, in reference to these matters, some regard for facts and truth. He agreed in the principle that the judicial rent in the cases of all tenants should be dated from the day of application to have the judicial rent fixed; but he wished to call attention to one important point in connection with this subject. They know very well that large numbers of tenants had not made application to the Court, who ought to have gone there; and he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would ask, who was it that had prevented those tenants from doing so? The hon. Member who had spoken in so mild a way on this matter in Committee (Mr. Parnell), and the Party who acted with him, were those who had done their very best to prevent the tenants going into Court; and the result was that precious time had been wasted. It was those hon. Gentlemen who had excited the feelings of the tenantry until the country had been brought to its present condition. If those hon. Gentlemen had been actuated by the feeling they now professed to entertain, and had felt a true regard for the interests of the tenants and a real sentiment of patriotism, they would have done their utmost, at the moment the Land Act came into force, to make it 989 acceptable among the people of Ireland, and to insure that it should work in the best possible way. History would toll, and did tell, and the people of Ireland —the peasants of that country—were beginning to know and to acknowledge why it was that they had been brought into their present condition. At the same time, he thought the Government must face events as they were; and he did think that even now, if they were to give some assistance in the direction indicated as to rent—he was not speaking of arrears—it would be highly desirable. He should not vote on this proposal.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, there was not the slightest particle of foundation for the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mitchell Henry) that he (Mr. Parnell) had prevented, or sought to hinder, any tenant from going into the Land Court; and he called on the hon. Gentleman to produce his proofs for that assertion, either with regard to any words which he (Mr. Parnell) had uttered, or any action he had taken or sanctioned.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Committee was drifting into a discussion on the general operation of the Land Act, and must confine its attention to the Amendment under consideration. There was a technical difficulty about the matter when he permitted the clause to be brought before the Committee. They must not, however, get into a discussion as to the general operation of the Land Act.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he had not originated the discussion, but he had felt great interest in the question as to the date of fixing of the judicial rent, and in connection with the present clause certain comments had been made which he had thought ought not to be allowed to go unnoticed. He therefore said that the advice given by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) and his Friends was that the tenants should not go into the Land Court.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that was not the subject before the Committee. The Question was whether the clause moved by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) should be read a second time.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he had already said all he wished to say, and he had no desire to go any further.
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, now the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was 990 in the House, perhaps he would be able to make an announcement on the question that would be satisfactory to the Irish Members. The Amendment was a most important one, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state his view with regard to it.
§ MR. DALYwished to say a word or two as to arrears. He wished to know whether the arrears could be calculated on the basis of the judicial rents of the Commissioners, or on the basis of the rack rents imposed by the landlords? There was no more remarkable fact than the evidence of the hon. Member for the County of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), who, in order to satisfy his animus against the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), declared that the clause would do harm to his constituents. The reason for the clause was, first of all, the delay in fixing a judicial rent, which arose directly with the Government, because of insufficient machinery having been provided for acting on the originating notice. The demand of hon. Members from Ireland was this—that when the rent had been fixed judicially at a certain sum, the fact of its not having been fixed earlier arose from insufficient machinery provided by the Government. They said that when once the rent had been fixed the arrears should be calculated upon the basis of that rent, and not on the basis of the rack rent of the landlord. The object of the Government in proposing this legislation was to restore peace and contentment to Ireland. If this clause was denied to them by the Committee the effect would be a prolongation, of the unhappy strife at present prevailing in the country. On every principle of equity, on every principle of expediency, the Government would do well to consider; this clause, which contained only what was just and equitable, and which, if adopted, would go a great length in promoting the prosperity of Ireland.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that now the Prime Minister was in his place he would appeal to him whether he could not see his way to making some announcement with regard to the course he intended to pursue as to the subject of this clause. The clause proposed that when the Court was applied to to fix a fair rent, that rent should date from the day of the application to the Court. Under the Bill the rent would date from the day of the fixing of the fair rent by the Court. 991 It was a matter very considerable practical importance that such an arrangement as that proposed in this clause should be admitted with a view of facilitating settlements out of Court between landlords and tenants. As he (Mr. Parnell) had explained a short time ago, if an application was not heard, and the tenant did not succeed in having the rent fixed, the landlord might continue to charge a rack rent. He had also explained to the Committee, with regard to the announcement by the Government that they intended to deal with this matter next Session, that it would be well, when they did deal with it, that the action should have a retrospective effect, and should apply to those tenants who had gone to the Court to have a fair rent fixed previous to the passing of the Amendment Act, equally as to those who had applied after the passing of the measure. That would facilitate settlements, and do an enormous deal to restore law and order in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister the other day, in making a statement with regard to Public Business, intimated that the Government would next Session legislate on one or two points which required amending in the Land Act. And the right hon. Gentleman included amongst these points the question of the date of the fixing of the judicial rent; but he made no further statement as to the scope of this or any other Amendment. He (Mr. Parnell) would submit to the Government and the Committee that the present occasion, when this matter was under discussion, was the proper time for the Government to make up their minds as to what was demanded by the justice of the case, and to inform the Committee and the country what their intentions were with regard to it. It was of the utmost importance, if the Government intended to amend the Land Act in that direction, that the country should know it, and that both landlords and tenants in Ireland should have some idea of what was going to be done in order that settlements out of Court might be facilitated as much as possible. He hoped he was not asking too much in desiring the Prime Minister, now that he saw the right hon. Gentleman in his place, to throw some light upon this subject. If the right hon. Gentleman would give some indication of his views, 992 hon. Members, no doubt, would be prepared to proceed to the next Business on the Paper without prolonging the present discussion.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman near him spoke of the intention of the Government in regard to the particular point of amending the Land Act; therefore, he could not refer precisely to what had fallen from him; but he (Mr. Gladstone) believed that what the right hon. Gentleman had said was perfectly in accordance with the actual views of the Government. He (Mr. Gladstone) wished to point out that there seemed, to be some misapprehension as to what had fallen from him on a previous occasion. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) had spoken of the supposition that some matter or other —he (Mr. Gladstone) forgot what it was —would appear in the legislation of 1883 with regard to the Irish Land Act; and he (Mr. Gladstone) said, in reply, that he had never given any promise of legislation for 1883 on the Irish Land Act, and that all he had said had been that there were a variety of points under the Land Act which had, in varying degrees, or which might be held to have, claims on the attention of Parliament. When he declined to bind the Government to bring in legislation of any particular kind it was on broad and general grounds. First of all, he did not think it would be desirable to hold out an expectation of legislation on the Irish Land Act which, as had been pointed out by hon. Members, would disturb the public mind with expectations in a manner likely to retard the action that was now going on, and, generally, he believed going on to the great benefit of the country. He was bound to say that in the present state of Parliamentary Business and the crippled condition of that House in respect to the transaction of the accumulated Business before it touching the Empire at large, and England and Scotland in particular, neither he nor his Colleagues were prepared to enter into any pledge whatever in regard to any kind of legislation for next year until Parliament had dealt with the question of its own procedure, and that simply upon the ground that they were so entirely destitute of knowledge as to what it would be or what it would not be in the power of the House of 993 Commons to do. So long as the present state of arrangements continued he should be encouraging delusive expectations, and holding out hopes not likely to be fulfilled if, when one after the other, claims were made upon the Government—as they would be made with great promptitude if he gave the promise—he promised that kind of legislation for the next Session of Parliament. In the present condition of things the Government must reserve absolute freedom of action; and, in addition to that, he thought it would not be desirable to hold out any expectations that would interfere with the progress of the settlement in Ireland. He had said this much, not in strict conformity with the Rules of the Committee, perhaps, although he had not intended to go beyond them; but the matter of this clause having been brought, though by a narrow justification, within the view of the Committee, he could not altogether refuse to reply to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell).
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 37; Noes 116: Majority 79.—(Div. List, No. 278.)
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he wished to move a new clause to the effect that, after the tenant had obtained his release from arrears, such release should be a bar to any proceeding by any other creditor to recover, by sale of the tenure, any debt or debts owing by the tenant of the date of the last gale day of the tenancy in the year 1881. He had placed the Amendment on the Paper to give effect to a great many observations which had been made as to the position of the gombeen man, or whatever the Irish called the moneylender. It was partly suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gregory), and partly by his (Sir George Campbell's) own experience of the gombeen man in India. He knew very well that in India there was a person corresponding to the gombeen man who was a money-lender. There were two extreme views as to the manner in which the gombeen man should be treated; but what he wished to do was to take a middle course. He wished to give the gombeen man his rights, and no more than his rights; but as the Bill now stood they would really give him more 994 than his rights, and would be putting him in a better position than he had ever occupied before, for the reason that the land legislation had done two things for him; it had made the sale of the tenant right a security to him that he never had before, and had removed the claim of the landlord, who, under the existing law, had the first charge. They limited the first charge of the landlord, and put the second charge of the gombeen man in a better position than it had ever enjoyed before. They took away from the gombeen man all motive for the exercise of forbearance towards the tenant, and gave him a summary remedy by the sale of the tenant right— in fact, they were just bringing about that effect which they wished to avoid. He did not propose to go so far as the Amendment put upon the Paper by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory), who proposed that the release under this Bill should operate as a release in bankruptey—relieving the tenant from all demands. He (Sir George Campbell) did not propose to wipe out claims altogether, but merely to apply the special remedy which this Bill would give. In America, India, and other countries, there was a homestead law under which the tenure was not to be saleable; and though he did not propose to go so far as that law, he thought it ought to be provided in the Bill that the gombeen man should not be able to sell up the tenant, especially as it was provided in the measure that the landlord should not be able to do so.
§ New Clause—
§ (Operation of a release from arrears.)
§ "After the tenant has obtained release from arrears by the operation of this Act, such release shall be a bar to any proceeding by any other creditor of the tenant to recover, by sale of the tenure, any debt or debts owing by the tenant of the date of the last gale day of the tenancy in the year 1881."—(Sir George Campbell.)
§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. SYNANsaid, he quite concurred with his hon. Friend as to the absolute necessity of a clause of this character, in order to make this a complete Bill. What was the object of the Bill, and why was it that public money was given 995 for the purpose of relieving the Irish tenant of his arrears? Why, the object was two-fold—first, to keep a man in his holding; and, next, to enable him to take advantage of the Land Act of last year. They compulsorily made the landlord forgive the tenant his arrears, which might be six or seven years' arrears, on payment of one year's rent; and they did that for the purpose of enabling the tenant, on discharging that one year's rent, to go into the Land Court and keep his holding. What would be the use of this measure if the creditor of the tenant, for whose advantage the Bill was passed, was to be enabled to put up the holding for sale, and turn the tenant out? Would not the object be defeated? If the Bill were passed in its present form, would not the gombeen man come in more powerful than the landlord, and be able to sell the tenant out and out; and would not their legislation be altogether fruitless? It seemed to him that there was a very strong analogy between the case of India and Ireland in this matter; and, for the purpose of making their legislation complete, they ought to prevent the gombeen man from being able to take advantage of a law enabling him to sell the tenant out, and to obtain his debt with usurious interest. He did not think the gombeen man ought to be allowed to recover in that way. If this clause were adopted the legislation would leave the gombeen man as a creditor of the tenant, with the ordinary means for obtaining his debt; and the effect of the present legislation, in the interest of the tenant, would be to put the debtor in a better position to discharge his liabilities, so that the gombeen man would be benefited, although he would be prevented from selling out the tenant. The Amendment only went to this extent—that the gombeen man should not turn out the tenant any more than the landlord.
§ MR. GIVANsaid, he trusted that the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) would not press this Amendment, which he (Mr. Givan) looked upon as utterly indefensible and impracticable. He thought the object of the Bill was to put the tenant farmer who received relief in the same position as his solvent neighbour —to put him in the world on an equal footing, to allow him to remain in his holding unfettered like the man who, 996 by his own effort, had been able to pay off all his arrears. If the clause were adopted, the tenant would be prevented from getting ordinary credit.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would point out that his Amendment only applied to past debts.
§ MR. GIVANsaid, no doubt that was so; but the Committee would see in what respect it would fail to work. For instance, how would they be able to draw a distinction between the gombeen man and the ordinary shopkeeper? Who was the gombeen man? Why, anyone who lent money at 2 or 3 per cent was a gombeen man. There were some people who objected altogether to the lending of money, and who contended that it was against the moral law; and these people would hold that the person who lent money at a reasonable interest was a gombeen man. Any man who lent money to a tenant, in order to got him out of a difficulty, or to keep him in his holding, would be deprived of his rights under this clause. Suppose a man had a mortgage on a holding, a registered interest, a sort of indefeasible title, was he to be deprived of his mortgage by this Amendment, and the legal interest he had obtained in the holding as security for the repayment of a just debt at a reasonable rate of interest? Was a mortgage under these circumstances, or a debt contracted under these circumstances, to be considered as null and void, simply because the hon. Member chose to call the man who lent money a "gombeen man?" He hoped the Committee would see that this clause would be an injustice to the tenant, that it would brand him and his holding perpetually, and would prevent him from obtaining credit.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the hon. and learned Member who had just addressed the Committee spoke of reasonable interest, and perhaps the Committee would allow him (Sir John Hay) to refer to an extract from the Report of the Irish Fishery Commissioners with regard to 17,000 tenants in Connemara. The Commissioners stated that hitherto these people had always been obliged to resort to a humble sort of usurer, who asked usually 50 per cent for his money. It was these persons that the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) sought to prevent from selling up the tenant. The Report to which he referred was with 997 reference to County Galway, and was laid on the Table of the House in 1876. He wished merely to say these few words to point out to the Committee how very different were the terms under which these poor creatures borrowed money from the terms that might be imagined under the representation of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan).
§ MR. RAMSAYsaid, his experience was not different from that which the right hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down brought forward. His (Mr. Ramsay's) difficulty was that it was not specified that the clause was to be confined to cases in which 50 per cent, or a lesser amount of interest, had been charged. The clause applied to all debts due to a certain date by the tenant. It might be within the Indian experience of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), but it was not within the experience of anyone in this country, that a person should be liable for the payment of a debt, and not be liable to give up his means for the purpose of meeting the liability. To his (Mr. Ramsay's) mind, it would be very much to be regretted if the Government should see their way to accepting any such Amendment to deprive the honest trader who had lent money for the purchase of carts, or other implements used in the cultivation of a farm, of the power of taking any means that the tenant might have in repayment. To lay down such a principle would be a very dangerous precedent.
§ MR. BLAKEsaid, he agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), he (Mr. Blake) himself having been in conflict with the gombeen man who was charging 50 per cent for the money he lent, whilst he (Mr. Blake) had only been receiving 2½ per cent. The greatest curse over a large portion of Ireland was the gombeen man. The right hon. and gallant Member (Sir John Hay) had just quoted from his (Mr. Blake's) Report for 1876, as a Member of the Fisheries Commission in Ireland, in which he had stated that the usual rate of interest paid to the gombeen man was 50 per cent. Not only was the gombeen man an unmitigated evil over a large portion of Ireland, but so also was the small shopkeeper. He (Mr. 998 Blake) could state, from a very extensive knowledge of the peasantry of Ireland, that, in the matter of procuring seed, clothing, timber, and so on, the exactions of these small shopkeepers were of a most tremendous character. The great object of this Bill was to give the poorer class of tenants some heart to meet the world again; but if, whilst they were relieved from the claims of the landlord in respect of arrears, they were to be open to the exactions of this class of creditors, they would be deprived, in hundreds and thousands of cases, of all heart. This clause would not deprive the creditors of the poor tenant from getting their money paid back in other ways; but, for the sake of humanity, he would appeal to the Committee, whilst they relieved the tenant in the way they proposed, to go a step further and pass this most desirable and necessary clause moved by the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs for the protection of the tenant. He (Mr. Blake) knew that in a vast number of instances the poor tenantry were quite prepared to pay the debts to the gombeen man and to the shopkeepers directly they were able to do so; and he, therefore, did not think that these creditors should have the pull they would possess in the power of selling the tenant right of these people.
§ MR. SHAWsaid, he did not really know what the hon. Gentleman meant by this Amendment. Did he mean that the mere effect of settling arrears of rent settled all other debts? [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: No.] Then what would be the effect of it? Suppose they passed the clause, everyone who had a debt out would at once take proceedings against the debtor, and the result would be a universal clearing of the West of Ireland. If they passed the clause, and if proceedings were at once taken, the next thing the Committee would hear of would be that, before people could make application for relief under this measure, whole districts would be cleared of their inhabitants. ["No, no!"] At any rate, that was his reading of the matter. To his mind, there was a great deal of nonsense talked on this question. The gombeen man was a person doing a very small business, and that business was scattered over very large districts. The loans were for small amounts, and it was as necessary for the gombeen man to 999 live as for anybody else. He (Mr. Shaw) did not believe they charged a farthing more for their trouble than the largest merchant in London did for his turnover. But for those so-called gombeen men the poor tenants of Ireland would not have lived at all during the past two or three years. He know the efforts the shopkeepers in his own county had made to keep the farmers in the district above board. Far from feeling any desire to destroy those poor people, the shopkeepers were anxious to maintain them, because in destroying them they would be destroying themselves. If he understood this clause at all, he thought it would be extremely injurious.
§ MR. DALYsaid, he quite accepted the view put forward by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), and he thought, with regard to this clause, that it smacked a great deal of Indian experience, and was wholly inapplicable to the condition of Ireland. They had had the gombeen man introduced into this debate, and their attention had been directed to him in order to induce them to commit a great injustice. Men who, like himself, saw on his desk the judgments that were obtained against these Irish farmers would know very well that if the gombeen man was the kind of person it was sought to make it appear, his name would be found connected with those documents much more often than it was. As a matter of fact, the gombeen man was very much a character of past times. It was now very easy for an Irish farmer to obtain money; for any honest man of decent character, who got two other men of decent character to put their names on a bill, was able to obtain a fair sum of money on reasonable and equitable terms, so that the gombeen man was rapidly disappearing. If this clause became law, they would really destroy in a great part the asset of these industrial people of good character of whom he spoke. Let him take, for example, a man who had had his judicial rent fixed, who was a man of good repute, of whom his clergyman spoke in good terms; supposing he wanted to raise £60 or £80, what better security could there be for the repayment of the loan than the deposit of his lease? If that was not to be a security, his (Mr. Daly's) contention was that they would do great injustice to a great many people. He 1000 acquitted the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs of blame for putting this clause on the Paper, as the hon. Member had very little knowledge of Ireland. A great deal had been said about the interest charged by country shopkeepers; but, as a matter of fact, no one had so substantially sustained the farmers and labourers during the terrific struggle through which they had passed as these very shopkeepers. And for what reason was it that they had sustained those poor people? It was because they had implicit faith in the honesty of the persons they had assisted. The shopkeepers who had advanced goods were absolutely confident of being paid when the farmers were in a position to discharge their liabilities. He had conversed with hundreds of these shopkeepers, and their general reply, when questioned upon these subjects, was—"Please God, when the good times come, we shall get paid." With regard to the rate of interest at which money was lent, there was always a sufficient competition in even the remotest village in Ireland to regulate the price; and, independent of the immorality of a breach of trust against the people who had given their goods to the Irish farmers, there would be another danger in passing this clause, and that was the possible demoralization of the tenants themselves. He considered, as regarded this clause, if it had been submitted to any person with the experience of the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), or any person who knew the country, and their opinion had been given, he did not believe the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs would have put this proposal on the Paper. As it was, he (Mr. Daly) believed if the clause passed into law it would not be regarded as a boon by any honest or respectable tenant; but, on the contrary, would be looked upon by a great part of the community as an error and injustice. And there was another thing he wished to point out. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs had referred to the fact that the clause only applied to past debts. The hon. Member in his clause would seem to display ignorance of human nature—did he not know that when a man was claiming and receiving usurious interest he took good care to protect himself by every tittle of the law that could avail him anything? 1001 They might rest assured that where money had been lent at usurious interest by a practised money-lender, where it was possible to hold the asset of the tenant it was held. Therefore, the clause was useless; it could not operate with regard to the past, and it could do a great deal of mischief, not alone in practice, but in principle, with regard to the morality and character of the tenant.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the Committee would decline to consider this clause in relation to the poor farmer. He was not going into the question as to how far that person was to be protected against the gombeen man or not. There had been hard cases, no doubt; but for every case where the gombeen man was affected, the clause would apply to five or six other cases where the tenant would not have been able to carry on his business at all if it had not been for advances he had received either in money or in kind. The shopkeepers would be placed in a most unfortunate position — they would be reduced almost to ruin if they were to lose the chance of getting back that which was owing to them by the farmers. But the reason he had risen was to call the attention of the Committee to what he thought would have to be done if this clause were accepted. What had they done in the case of the landlord creditor? They had said—"We will assure you out of State money—out of either the Irish Church Fund or the Imperial taxes—a very considerable part of your debt, if you, on your part, will forego a portion of it." The State would pay 50 per cent of the debt, very often more. If this clause were passed, it would be said they were taking away from the shopkeepers and those who had advanced money the only method of securing repayment that was left to them; and it would be said—"These people will now have very little chance of getting a penny." The Committee would, therefore, see that they would be unable to treat the shopkeeper, the banker, or even the gombeen man, different to the landlord; and they would have to be prepared to vote a very considerable sum of money to compensate them for their losses out of some public fund.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought great importance was to be attached to the observations of the right hon. Gen- 1002 tleman (Mr. W. E. Forster); but he (Mr. W. H. Smith) wished to ask the Government how they were going to protect the tenant when he was rehabilitated under this Bill? There could be no doubt that at the present moment it was not worth the while of the shopkeeper, or the gombeen man, or of any creditor to take proceedings against the tenant, as the landlord had the first claim upon him. The debts remained unsecured; but as soon as the tenant was rehabilitated under this Bill, all the claims upon the tenant, except the claim of the landlord, would become singularly valuable. That which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) would happen under this clause. As the hon. Member had pointed out, directly this passed it would be a notice to the creditor that his debt became more or less doubtful, and the creditor would instantly put the law into operation and obtain a judgment against the tenant. The tenant would be clear from all claim by the landlord under the Bill—he would be released, as far as the landlord was concerned, from any fear of eviction — and the other creditors, seeing that the tenant was possessed of a most valuable property which his landlord could not touch, would instantly endeavour to possess themselves of that property. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) thought it was clear that the creditor would at once avail himself of the facilities that he would undoubtedly possess under this Act for recovering a debt, which at the present moment was wholly and absolutely irrecoverable. Well, was it the intention of the Government that that should happen which the hon. Member for the County of Cork said would take place under the clause, and which would undoubtedly happen when the measure was in full operation? Was it the intention of the Government that creditors whose debts were now absolutely irrecoverable should have the opportunity of setting the law in motion, and clearing whole districts in Ireland under the powers which this Act would certainly place at their disposal? If it were so, the Act could not be called a measure for the benefit of persons who had got into arrear with their rent. The result of passing the clause would be that an immense number of actions would instantly be set on foot in the Civil Bill Courts.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, no doubt they were placed in a difficulty, and no one would be inclined to discredit the good intentions of the hon. Gentleman in endeavouring to grapple with it. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had contributed nothing whatever to the removal of the difficulty, and had only made the general and vague admission that he thought there was a good deal of force in the admirable, though short speech which had come from the right hon. Gentleman on the Ministerial Benches (Mr. Forster). If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) would vote in conformity with the admirable speech of the right hon. Gentleman referred to he would do well; and he (Mr. Gladstone) looked to the right hon. Gentleman for support, inasmuch as he had supplied nothing, great or small, in answer to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. But he (Mr. Gladstone) was not going to avoid answering the question of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman asked—"How are you going to protect the tenant against his ordinary creditor?" Well, they were going to protect the tenant certainly by no direct legislation; but they were going to protect him against the ordinary creditor in the only way that would be legitimate—unless they were prepared to follow the course pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, by improving his position, by relieving him of the most perilous of his debts, by giving him a fresh start in life, and by placing his credit on a sound commercial footing —by enabling him to go into the Court to get a judicial rent, and to put himself in the sound position, in which, instead of having to pay 20 per cent for any advance he might require, he might go to the bank and obtain it for 5 per cent. The Bill would give the tenant fair play and an open field, and enable him to attain a solvent position. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not pretend to say that the provisions of the Bill were such as to meet every case that might arise —he did not deny that some cases of the kind referred to by the hon. Baronet who moved the clause might sometimes occur. No doubt there might be cases where the creditors might, wisely or unwisely, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) had pointed out, make a rapid use of the powers of the 1004 Bill. No doubt cases might occur where in that way the creditors would be able to put the tenants in a position of difficulty, probably culminating in eviction. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not deny that, and he did not pretend that they could prevent it. The question before the Committee was, whether there was a remedy for the difficulty, and, if so, whether that remedy was offered in the clause of the hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Gladstone) ventured to say there was no answer at all to be given to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster). The clause made no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate debts, and no doubt, if it were accepted, the creditors of the tenants would at once take steps for enforcing their claims. The gombeen man, like the Jews in Roumania and elsewhere, was the offspring of the necessities of the people, and the best way to get rid of him was not to destroy his remedy at law, but to render his assistance unnecessary. Supposing he granted—and he was not sure that he should be justified in granting it—that they would be justified in taking away the rights of the gombeen man if he stood alone. But he did not stand alone, the clause made no differ-once between the debts owing to the gombeen man and the most legitimate debts. The money-lender who had supplied the tenant with means, when he was in a state of the direst distress, possibly starving, would be dealt with in exactly the same way as the usurer. And he agreed with the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) that if the provision were accepted, the news of its acceptance would be telegraphed to Ireland, and all the tenant's creditors would immediately take steps to enforce the remedy which the law allowed. Though he was not prepared to endorse all the hon. Member, who, no doubt, was a great authority, had stated—namely, that whole districts would be cleared if this clause were enforced, he had no doubt that the creditors would be driven to the use of his remedy were they to adopt so unprecedented a measure. They would be driven in many instances to take the most speedy and violent action. Let them consider what was the clause before the Committee. The tenant in Ireland had two classes of creditors, the landlord on the one side and the shop- 1005 keeper and the money-lender on the other. He (Mr. Gladstone) might fairly make this classification. Well, what were they doing by this Bill? They were endeavouring to settle by a summary process the tenant's account with his landlord; and why did they do that? Not merely because the tenant was in arrear and distress—there were plenty of people in arrear and distress elsewhere than in Ireland, though not in such great masses—but chiefly because unless they did so he could not have access to the Land Court. It was not the relief of distress, it was not merely the prevention of eviction—though he admitted that was a great object—but it was, above all, to give the tenant access to the Land Court; and it was because access to the Land Court was a capital part of an Imperial policy which they had induced Parliament to adopt that this measure was brought forward. That object, however, would remain essentially crippled so long as a large portion of the small tenantry in Ireland were barred from entrance to the Land Court by the existence of this particular kind of debt. It would be an anomaly, having determined to give access to the Court, to continue to debar the tenants from all accessibility to it. Then, on what principle did they interfere? They did not take away all the remedies of the shopkeeper. That might be literally true, but he did not think it was true in substance. What remedy did they leave him? They left him a remedy which would be a most cruel one—namely, the right of selling up the tenant and reducing the man to a level of insufficiency in the holding, or they compelled him to leave the farm. The only remedy was that of selling up the stock. Was that a desirable course to drive the shopkeeper or gombeen man to? It would be much better in the interest of the shopkeeper himself to drive him to a remedy less effective. When they interfered with the landlord's debt for the purposes of public policy, it should be remembered that, acting on a principle which was strictly equitable and even liberal, they gave him money where in many cases he had no chance of getting a penny; and they could not well take away from the shopkeeper and the gombeen man the only remedy they had without giving them some sort of compensation. That would be altogether a 1006 one-sided operation. There might, no doubt, be evictions from the imprudent use by these creditors of their legal rights; but whatever might be the result, he ventured to say that the remedy by the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was a remedy one hundredfold worse than the disease.
§ MR. GIBSONremarked, that the Prime Minister, in his interesting speech, told the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy that he sought to apply an unprecedented remedy for an unprecedented state of facts. The right hon. Gentleman might have described his own Bill in similar words. He should like to know what would be the condition of the tenant, after the Bill was passed, if it were left exactly as it stood at present? He was protected from the landlord against the landlord's consent, and was given, it might be, a substantial part of the landlord's property; but would that protect the tenant against being destroyed? That he understood to be the object of the Bill; and what was the method adopted for preserving and protecting the tenant from other creditors? Under the Bill as it stood a gift was made from the State measured by the large sum, it might be, of £2,500,000, and the landlord's claim, which might amount to several years' rent, was to be partly obliterated nominally for the advantage of the tenant, but really for the advantage of his other creditors. Why was this? The answer to that question was sought to be given in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. He would not say that the method adopted by this Bill was desperate, but, at any rate, it was extraordinary; and it might hereafter be found that they had undertaken this exceptional legislation, not for the benefit of the men they sought to benefit, but simply for the advantage of their creditors. The way in which the Amendment had been discussed on the part of the Government was fairly clever. The difficulty of dealing with the matter was patent and obvious, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy was open to criticism and might require revision, so far as the drafting of the Amendment went. Without claiming any special capacity for criticism, he could criticize this Amendment without the slightest difficulty, and no doubt it was open to many 1007 of the difficulties which had been suggested in regard to its drafting, and if it were read a second time it would require considerable alteration. There could he no doubt about that. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) used words in regard to it which were most interesting, and, to a certain extent, most touching. He asked "why the mortgagee, having realized his position by getting judgment, should be deprived of his mortgage and interest in the holding and have his legal rights suspended?" That was very sound criticism. The whole Bill proceeded on the assumption that it was necessary for the purposes of public policy to sweep away the landlord's right to his arrears and deprive him of his interest in the holding. Was there any reason, on any logical grounds, why the same principle should not be applied even to a person who held the position of mortgagee. The hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) said he did not see that it was reasonable to devise a drastic measure of a desperate and unprecedented character to offend any person other than a landlord. It might be said that one victim was enough for one Bill, and that victim was the landlord. Why were banks entitled to be more privileged and protected than landlords? The whole Bill proceeded in a manner so exceptional that it was very difficult to argue upon sound logic. The truth was that the measure was one of so anomalous a character that in dealing with it they were bound to dismiss their logic to the same remote region as that to which last Session they consigned their political economy. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) had thrown his modest agis over the Prime Minister in reference to the Bill. The Prime Minister was obviously in a difficulty in dealing with it satisfactorily. He was severe in his manner, and evidently anxious to know, in terms of considerable severity, why it was that his Bill was assailed by methods so desperate and unreasonable. The right hon. Member for Bradford came to the rescue, and said there was no analogy between the position of the tenant and the landlord and the other creditors, because the landlord was to be paid one-half of the arrears; but in the first clauses of the Bill no volition was given to the landlord, and considerably more than one- 1008 half of his entire claim might be swept away for ever, whether he liked it or not. It was not to be suspended, but swept away for all time, and for all purposes, against every class of property the tenant might have. There was no analogy in that drastic treatment of the Bill and the treatment proposed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy in his Amendment, which only sought to suspend a particular remedy for a particular purpose. No one could say that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy was not open to grave criticism; but he (Mr. Gibson) wanted to know if the Bill was not one which, in all its provisions, was itself open to criticism? They were told they were bound to accept the Bill with their eyes shut, or they would be opposing an Imperial policy. It was no answer to say that there were difficulties besetting the question. He admitted them. The whole argument for the Bill rested on the statement made by the Prime Minister more than once in the course of his speech, that it should be clearly recollected by hon. Members in the discussion that the great object to subserved by the Bill was that of procuring for the tenant access to the Land Court. "That," said the right hon. Gentleman, "was the Imperial policy which was to be carried out, developed, and concluded under the operation of the Bill;" and the right hon. Gentleman, finding himself in that position, proposed that this should be his excuse for never again dealing with another Arrears Bill. He would ask, was not such an Amendment as that suggested by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy the one means by which efficacy could be given to that piece of Imperial policy, because, taking the Bill as it stood, what was its position if not shielded or followed by such an Amendment? They had given the tenant a legal support against his landlord, and why should they enable not the landlord, but one of the other creditors, to step in and, standing in the shoes of the tenant, avail himself of every one of the remedies provided by the State gift? Thus it might happen that their Imperial policy might have been passed in thousands of cases not for the advantage of the tenants of Ireland, but for the benefit of creditors of the tenants other than the landlord, who had been deliberately left free to proceed against 1009 the tenant and compel him to sell his estate. He had himself taken up the Bill as it stood, and he had listened with attention to the speech of the Prime Minister; but he felt bound to say, if the Government elected to send the Bill, as it stood now, from the House, it might be used in many cases to defeat the objects which the Government said were those which had caused them to bring in such a measure. He declined to enter into the question of the gombeen man. That was not the question. It might be that the gombeen man was often a respectable man. The one argument the Government presented to the country in justification of their Bill was that it was a Bill solely for the benefit of the tenants of Ireland, to enable the tenants to go into the Land Court. The argument now presented was that, as the Bill stood, it would enable and encourage other creditors of the tenant to supplant the tenant, and enable themselves to get the benefits of the Act.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDonly desired to say one word in regard to this important Amendment. He would not render himself amenable to the reproach of the Prime Minister, because he did not intend to leave it in doubt as to how he meant to vote. He was reported to have been the only Member of the House who had voted uncompromisingly in support of the Bill. The Prime Minister had stated that the object of the Bill was to give every tenant in Ireland a facility for approaching the Land Court. That was the reason why he (Mr. Arnold) had supported the Bill. But he took it that it was impossible for the Prime Minister to say that the tenant might not be deprived of his access to the Land Court by creditors other than the landlord, and if that allegation was substantiated, a very important case would be established for the Amendment of his hon. Friend. It set aside altogether other creditors, without giving a right to discriminate whether they were gombeen men or not. That was perfectly outside the question. As a matter of fact, the only institutions that were prosperous in Ireland at this moment were the banks. No one could dispute the fact that eight of the banks in Ireland at the present moment had stock which was worth more than the £100 stock of the Bank of England. 1010 What was the connection of the State with the matter? The State, by this Bill, gave to the tenant farmer of Ireland security which he did not before possess; and, in doing so, the State ought to make such terms as were equitable for the tenant. But he was bound to say that this clause was neither equitable nor reasonable; and for this reason only, that it proposed to give no consideration whatever to these creditors who were attacked by it. They gave the landlord consideration, and if they were now dealing with the debts of other creditors, they were bound to give them some consideration also. But, at the same time, if the clause of his hon. Friend were so altered as to secure that every tenant should have access to the Land. Court, and that access might be so secured by deferring or postponing the operation of the Act—say for one or two years—that would be a perfectly legitimate interference by the State on the ground that they had given the tenant a security he did not possess before, and had placed the creditors in a better position. He could not vote for the Amendment as it stood, because it placed the creditors in a worse position than that in which they stood before; but if his hon. Friend would so amend the proposal that there would be no immediate action taken—such as his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) suggested—until the tenants should have had the power of approaching the Land Court, he would support it.
§ MR. M'COANsaid, that whatever might be the fate of the Amendment, there was no doubt that it would have one salutary effect. He had voted for the Bill under the impression that its intention and its effect would be to secure the embarrassed tenants of Ireland in the possession of their holdings; but from the speech of the Prime Minister it seemed now clear enough that he had been voting for it under a delusion. In point of fact, he had been voting to oust the tenant from his interest in his holding, and to create an improved security, at his expense, for his other creditors. That had never been his intention. But the effect of this Bill was to oust the landlord by Parliamentary compulsion, and to compel him to surrender his just claims, or, at any rate, his legal claims, if they were not just—and, being legal, he was en- 1011 titled to assume, for the purpose of argument, that they were just—for the purpose of putting into a vastly improved position the shopkeeper and gombeen man, and the Munster Bank. Now, that had been no part of his meaning. He had meant to contribute by his vote to fix the embarrassed tenant in his holding, and to clear him from his embarrassments up to the end of last year, giving him a fresh start. The object of the Bill was declared to be to give the tenant a fresh start; but it now appeared that that was not so, for though the landlord was to be swept aside, the shopkeeper and gombeen man were to come forward and have their full pound of flesh. The only effect of the Bill would bo not to rehabilitate this large class of embarrassed tenants, and not to produce that amount of restored peace and contentment which they all hoped for from the provisions of the Bill, but to make provision for another class of creditors. The Bill was, therefore, a delusion, and he should, accordingly, vote for the Amendment. There was no doubt that the Amendment was open to criticism, but it embodied a sound principle, without which the Act would be a failure, and without which they would not have done their utmost to get rid of the embarrassment of the tenant.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)asked the Committee to bring back their minds to the Bill before them. After the long discussion the Bill had received, and the considerable amount of labour it had imposed upon hon. Members, many of whom had had to attend in their places from morning to night, this Amendment was now introduced from their own side of the House. The object of it was to create a totally different effect as regarded the release of the tenant from arrears from that contemplated by the Bill. No one, however acute he might be, would find the germ of the Amendment in the Bill itself, either good, bad, or indifferent. It had no real connection with the Bill, and it would be just as reasonable to propose an Amendment for the payment of Cetewayo's expenses in coming over to this country, as the Amendment now proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) to the Bill which they had been discussing day and night for a considerable period with hardly a break. 1012 They were now asked to introduce a clause respecting a matter which had no connection whatever with the object of the Bill. It was a Bill to make provision for certain arrears of rent, and when the 1st clause was under discussion the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) asked, as he was entitled to do, what they were going to do with the other creditors. That very question was discussed about a month ago. In the time which had since elapsed they had gone through all the clauses, and it was supposed that the Bill would be reported that day. It was now half-past 2 o'clock, and they had made no impression upon the Amendments on the Paper; and they were now, after an interval of a month, going to have all the second reading speeches over again as to whether all the creditors ought not to be brought under the venue of the Bill, and left in the same position as the landlord. He appealed to hon. Members if that was a reasonable way of conducting the Business of the House. He admitted that he had had no large experience of the way of conducting Public Business in that House; but he must say that up to the present time he had never heard of such constant repetitions of second reading speeches. The same arguments were repeated day after day upon the different provisions of the Bill, and when at length, to use a popular expression, they all thought they could see daylight, they found that daylight had gone back into night again. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) said the present discussion satisfied him that the Bill was a fallacy and a delusion. If so, it would be better to abandon it altogether. If the exigencies of the case did not require that assistance should be given to the tenant in the interests of peace and order, why go on with it? The landlord was the largest creditor, no doubt the first creditor; there were considerable arrears due to him, and he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had said before, and he would repeat again, that he entirely denied the assertion that the forbearance of the landlord was a matter of consideration to the tenant, for he simply allowed the arrears to accumulate for which he could at any moment come down and crush him. Therefore, the man to whom large arrears were due was not to be re- 1013 garded as a benevolent friend. The State now came forward and said—"We will pay one year's rent clear to the landlord up to the end of 1881, if the tenant can produce another year's rent, and the tenant may then go free, the landlord obtaining two years' rent." It was said that the Bill was opposed to all good finance and economic science. He had no doubt that it was contrary to good finance; but then it was always contrary to good finance for a man to be poor. No man was a good Chancellor of the Exchequer whose pockets were always empty; and that was the condition of a large portion of the tenantry of Ireland. But the question was, how were they to be relieved? He granted that the Bill presented to the House was presented on a "give and take" ground. The landlord received two years' arrears of rent, and not the tenant. With regard to the remaining arrears, up to last November and all subsequent arrears the Bill did not propose to interfere. This clause related to a condition of things in which a tenant with a few cows and a few agricultural implements might have to depend for assistance upon neighbours. He dared say there were parts of Connemara where there was no plough at all. [Mr. MITCHELL HENRY: No.] He was not speaking of tenants of the hon. Member for Galway; but he was assured that in some parts of Connemara there was not a plough possessed by a tenant, and that he had to depend upon what assistance he could get. Many of the tenants had in their houses as their only furniture, a dresser, a few plates, perhaps one table, and a couple of seat3. In that state of things Parliament came forward and gave the tenant a fresh start, rendering him free from his liabilities. But what did this Amendment propose? It proposed to drive the creditors of the tenant, other than the landlord, to a state of desperation. The effect of that would be that, knowing their security was to be taken away, and having nothing to rely upon but the small means of the impoverished tenant, the shopkeeper would be driven to make a swoop and turn the tenant out without any means of living. They were told that that was benevolence to the tenant. He did not see in what the benevolence consisted. The larger the security the man had the less likely was he to take himself off. If the creditor 1014 knew that the tenant would be placed in a better position it would be to his interest to allow him to remain in his holding. The Bill gave the tenant a fresh start and insured him the means of paying his debts. Who were the class which it was proposed to shut out? They were a class who were almost as much suffering in the distressed districts as the tenants themselves. It was the class of smaller shopkeepers, who had been sailing in the same boat, and who had been keeping the tenants going, by helping them to keep body and soul together; and now it was proposed to take a step which would prevent those unfortunate men from recouping themselves in the only way they possibly could, and thereby impoverishing the tenant still more. He hoped the Committee would not listen to the Amendment. The Bill was not intended to be, as they all knew, an Insolvency or Bankruptcy Bill for the tenants; it was not intended to convert an impoverished tenant into an insolvent tenant, and to require him to make an inventory of his goods. Whether it was a good or a bad Bill, it was, at any rate, an honest effort to give the small tenants in these impoverished circumstances the means of going on in the world as they were, but not so impoverished that in future they would be unable to make a fresh start. It proposed, in point of fact, to give the tenants the means of paying those very creditors who had shown benevolence in the past. He trusted the Committee would not accept the Amendment, for the sake of the tenants themselves.
§ MR. GILLsaid, he wished to state in a few words his reasons for voting against the Amendment before the Committee. He was quite certain the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had placed it on the Paper with the best motives; but the hon. Member could not appreciate what its effect would be in Ireland as well as those who lived there could. It would be, in the first place, the setting of two classes against each other who had hitherto worked well together — the farmers and the shopkeepers. He was bound to say that the shopkeepers were a considerate body of persons, who had never harshly exercised their rights against the tenants, and he believed that in future, if they had the power of selling the tenant's interest in his holding, 1015 they would rarely or never use it. To do so would be altogether against their own interest; it was not likely that a shopkeeper would incur the unpopularity and the certain destruction of his trade in the district which would follow. This was a strong reason, at any rate, why the power to sell would probably be very seldom used. During the speech of the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had interposed with the remark that if the Amendment were not passed it would be likely that many tenant farmers would be made bankrupts; but he (Mr. Gill) believed that if it were adopted its effect would be that a large number of shopkeepers would be placed in that position; and he was rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, with his vast mercantile experience, seemed not to be aware of the fact. He repeated his disbelief that the power of sale would be exorcised by the shopkeepers; but he was quite sure that the adoption of the Amendment would load to an immediate curtailment of credit throughout Ireland. The wholesale merchants would undoubtedly instruct their representatives and travellers to deal for cash only, and a large number of shopkeepers would suffer unjustly and severely in consequence. On the other hand, he could not agree that any practical advantage would result to the farmers, because, for the reasons already stated, he believed there would be exceedingly few shopkeepers willing to sell the tenant right of their own customers.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House."
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 182; Noes 38: Majority 144.
1017| AYES. | |
| Acland, C. T. D. | Bolton, J. C. |
| Agnew, W. | Borlase, W. C. |
| Armitstead, G. | Brassey, Sir T. |
| Arnold, A. | Bright, J. (Manchester) |
| Asher, A. | Broadhurst, H. |
| Ashley, hon. E. M. | Brogden, A. |
| Balfour, Sir G. | Bruce, hon. R. P. |
| Balfour, J. B. | Bryce, J. |
| Barnes, A. | Buchanan, T. R. |
| Barran, J. | Burt, T. |
| Biggar, J. G. | Caine, W. S. |
| Blake, J. A. | Callan, P. |
| Cameron, C. | Kinnear, J. |
| Campbell, Sir G. | Lalor, R. |
| Campbell, R. F. E. | Lawrence, Sir J. C. |
| Carbutt, E. H. | Lawrence, W. |
| Causton, R. K. | Lawson, Sir W. |
| Chamberlain, rt. hn. J. | Lea, T. |
| Chambers, Sir T. | Leahy, J. |
| Cheetham, J. F. | Leake, R. |
| Clarke, J. C. | Leatham, E. A. |
| Clifford, C. C. | Leatham, W. H. |
| Cohen, A. | Lee, H. |
| Collings, J. | Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S. |
| Colman, J. J. | |
| Colthurst, Col. D. La T. | Lvons, R. D. |
| Corbett, J. | M'Arthur, A. |
| Cotes, C. C. | M'Carthy, J. |
| Courtney, L. H. | M'Clure, Sir T. |
| Cowper, hon. H. E. | M'Coan, J. C. |
| Craig, W. Y. | Mackie, R. B. |
| Creyke, R. | Mackintosh, C. F. |
| Cropper, J. | Maitland, W. F. |
| Cunliffe, Sir R. A. | Mappin, F. T. |
| Daly, J. | Marum, E. M. |
| Davies, R. | Maskclyne, M. H. Story- |
| Davies, W. | Mason, H. |
| Dickson, J. | Matheson, Sir A. |
| Dickson, T. A. | Maxwell-Heron, J. |
| Dilke, Sir C. W. | Molloy, B. C. |
| Dodson, rt. hon. J. G. | Monk, C. J. |
| Duff, R. W. | Moore, A. |
| Ebrington, Viscount | Morgan, rt. hn. G. O. |
| Egerton, Adm. hon. E. | Morley, A. |
| Elliot, hon. A. R. D. | Muntz, P. H. |
| Errington, G. | Nelson, I. |
| Evans, T. W. | Nolan, Colonel J. P. |
| Fairbairn, Sir A. | O' Beirne, Major F. |
| Farquharson, Dr. R. | O'Brien, Sir P. |
| Fawcett, rt. hon. H. | O' Donoghue, The |
| Ferguson, B. | O 'Sullivan, W. H. |
| Findlater, W. | Palmer, G. |
| Foljambe, E. J. S. | Palmer, J. H. |
| Forster, rt. hon. W. E. | Parker, C. S. |
| Fowler, W. | Pease, A. |
| Fry, L. | Pease, Sir J. W. |
| Gill, H. J. | Pender, J. |
| Givan, J. | Pennington, F. |
| Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. | Porter, A. M. |
| Grant, A. | Potter, T. B. |
| Gurdon, R. T. | Price, Sir R. G. |
| Hamilton, J. G. C. | Pugh, L. P. |
| Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V. | Pulley, J. |
| Rathbone, W. | |
| Hartington, Marq. of | Richard, H. |
| Hayter, Sir A. D. | Richardson, J.N. |
| Henderson, E. | Richardson, T. |
| Heneage, E. | Roberts, J. |
| Henry, M. | Samuelson, B. |
| Herschell, Sir F. | Sexton, T. |
| Hibbert, J. T. | Shaw, W. |
| Hill, T. R. | Shield, H. |
| Holden, I. | Simon, Serjeant J. |
| Holland, S. | Slagg, J. |
| Hollond, J. R. | Smyth, P. J. |
| Holms, T. | Spencer, hon. C. R. |
| Howard, E. S. | Stansfeld, rt. hon. J. |
| Howard, G. J. | Stanton, W. J. |
| Illingworth, A. | Stuart, H. V. |
| James, C. | Sullivan, T. D. |
| James, Sir H. | Summers, W. |
| James, W. H. | Synan, E. J. |
| Jenkins, Sir J. J. | Taylor, P. A. |
| Johnson, W. M. | Thomasson, J. P. |
| Kingscote, Col. R. N. F. | Thompson, T. C. |
| Tillelt, J. H. | Willis, W. |
| Trevelyan, rt.hn. G. O. | Wilson, I. |
| Villiers, rt. hon. C. P. | Wilson, Sir M. |
| Waugh, E. | Wodehouse, E. R. |
| Webster, J. | Woodall, W. |
| Wedderburn, Sir D. | |
| Wiggin, H. | TELLERS. |
| Williams, S. C. E. | Grosvenor, Lord R. |
| Williamson, S. | Kensington, Lord |
| NOES. | |
| Alexander, Colonel C. | Northcote, H. S. |
| Barne, F. St. J. N. | Patrick, R. W. Coch-ran- |
| Barttelot, Sir W. B. | |
| Bontinck, rt. hon. G. C. | Ramsay, J. |
| Beresford, G. De la P. | Rankin, J. |
| Blackburne, Col. J. I. | Rolls, J. A. |
| Bruce, Sir H. H. | Ross, A. H. |
| Burrell, Sir W. W. | Round, J. |
| Campbell, J. A. | Salt, T. |
| Coddington, W. | Scott, M. D. |
| Compton, F. | Stanley, E. J. |
| Davenport, H. T. | Thomson, H. |
| Ecroyd, W. F. | Tollemache, hon. W. F. |
| Feilden, Major-General R. J. | Warton, C. N. |
| Whitley, E. | |
| Fenwick-Bisset, M. | Wolff, Sir H. D. |
| Floyer, J. | Wortley, C. B.Stuart- |
| Freshfield, C. K. | Wyndham, hon. P. |
| Harcourt, E. W. | |
| Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C D. | TELLERS. |
| Gregory, G. B. | |
| Holland, Sir H. T. | Schreiber, C. |
| Macartney, J. W. E. |
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 241.]