IRELAND—IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT—RELEASE OF MR. PARNELL AND OTHERS. (Hansard, 15 May 1882)

HC Deb 15 May 1882 vol 269 cc767-801 767

MR. GLADSTONE
As the House is aware, Sir, the policy of Her Majesty's Government at the present moment embraces three important principal subjects. One of these is the government of Ireland, including the particular question which has been made known to the House with regard to the release of such of those suspected persons now in confinement as are not believed to be, or suspected of being, implicated in crime; the second relates to the Bill for the Prevention of Crime, which, is already before the House; and the third relates to the mode of dealing with, arrears of rent in Ireland, with respect to which we have given pledges, and which I now rise to redeem. I may as well say, before touching the subject directly, inasmuch as the proposal we have to make imposes a new duty on the Land Commission—I may, perhaps, say a few words to show that the Land Commission is in a condition likely to be able to cope with that duty. It has been reinforced, as the House is aware, by the appointment of a considerable number of Sub-Commissioners; and the Courts, of which there are now 16, are in full operation, and the progress they make is large, and, I think, satisfactory. The total number of cases of which they have now disposed, although small with reference to the applications that have been lodged, yet is large with reference to the figures that have been reported at former dates. It amounts, down, I think, to April 15th—therefore now it will be much larger—to 12,402, that 768 number embracing the numbers dealt with by being struck out or withdrawn, and the numbers settled by voluntary agreement, the appeals are also proceeding with considerable rapidity, the number of those that have been dealt with up to May 10th being 359, and it is believed rapid progress will be made, as they now form, more or less, into various classes, and they are now disposed of with greater facility. The rate at which the cases of judicial rent are decided somewhat exceeds 900 per week, that including what are dealt with by Sub-Commissioners; what are dealt with by County Court Judges; and likewise the voluntary agreements which are made between landlord and tenant, and which are registered in the Land Courts. The House, if it applies that number which I have last given—of over 900—to the operations of the entire year, will perceive that the progress is now very rapid; and it may be said that the Commission, and the Subaltern Courts, are in a condition to meet with and dispose of the great mass of business that has been brought before them. Now, Sir, with regard to the subject that is before us, there is one other preliminary observation I have to make. I propose to ask the House, in this Bill, to legislate upon arrears alone, and not to touch any other subject whatever connected with the Land Act, or with the amendment of that Act. On a former occasion, in adverting to the particulars of the Bill introduced by several hon. Gentlemen opposite, I admitted that there were certain points—and I named two of them—on which a very strong argument might be made in favour of the amendment of the Act—of such amendment of the Act as can be fairly conceived to be amendment in furtherance of the Act, and for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions which it contains. But it is, I think, inevitable that if any question were to be raised on these points, it would have the effect of inducing hon. Members to raise other questions, and to load the Bill for Arrears with possibly a variety of subjects, which we think it best to hold entirely apart from it, because I have a hope—it is a hope that may be disappointed, like many others, but I own I do not despair of seeing it realized—that this subject, with which, I believe, there is a general disposition to deal, and see settled, may be easily dealt 769 with; and if the plan we propose, to which the House is, I think, certainly prepared to give a general acceptance, is agreed to, we may be able to secure for it the advantage of a rapid and easy passage through the House, and for that considerable portion of the people of Ireland interested in the adoption of a good plan on this subject the great benefit of reaping an early access to the operation of these provisions. Therefore, that observation I make, not in a spirit of controversy, but rather in a spirit of appeal to all those who wish to see this question settled; and I think they will be disposed to recognize with me that, without in any manner prejudging any other question relating to the amendment of the Land Act, we shall do wisely to keep the question of the Land Act separate from any other subject. Again, let me say that the plan which we lay before the House is, I hope, conceived in a spirit which on a former occasion I endeavoured to describe. We look at it as a matter which it is equally in the interests of all parties to settle by equitable arrangement. No doubt, if an extreme view be taken of the subject, either from the position of the landlord or that of the tenant, objections maybe made, because the principle upon which we proceed is one of composition. We ask each person to make some effort, or some sacrifice, in order to bring them together to the common point at which, and at which alone, it is possible to effect a general and complete settlement. I will state very briefly the particulars of the plan. It is not difficult to do so, because, in truth, it is not a new creation, but it grows out of other legislation, actual or proposed, which is now before the House. The House will bear in mind that the Act already contains a clause, and an important clause, on the subject of arrears; and many of the particulars embodied in that clause are perfectly available for the plan which we now propose. They have been adopted from that clause standing in the Act. They have been incorporated into the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) and other hon. Members sitting near him and sympathizing with him upon this subject. The real question that the House has to decide is which plan you will adopt of two bases of proceeding. Will you attempt 770 to proceed by the method of loan and purely voluntary arrangement; or will you attempt to proceed by the method of compulsion, which evidently involves the necessity of something in the shape of a gift? We have endeavoured to consider that subject with all the advantages of the light we could obtain. We made an effort to proceed by loan last year, and the experience obtained by that effort has not encouraged us to make a further effort in the same direction. It has not been entirely devoid of good fruit; but still the good fruit it has produced has been so limited that it has left the bulk of the question of arrears of rent in Ireland untouched by its operation. Several Gentlemen of great weight and authority in this House have advised that we should still make another effort of the same kind, but more liberal in its character, involving, I am bound to say, if it is to be more liberal, something of the principle of a gift. But, in our view, if we are to introduce the principle of a gift into the measure, it is much better to go one step further, and to combine with the principle of gift the principle of compulsion, so as to have the prospect of obtaining something like completeness and efficacy in the measure we desire to apply. I had an opportunity, some weeks ago, of speaking upon this subject, and I then submitted to the House that if we were to proceed upon the principle of gift, combined with compulsion, instead of the principle of loan, combined with purely voluntary arrangement, we should recognize, on the whole, the clause embodied in the Bill of the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) as a clause carefully devised in a spirit not inequitable to any of the parties concerned. I need hardly remind the House that these compulsory methods of procedure in cases of property are not infrequent in grave and difficult circumstances. It was upon this principle that the House dealt with the Emancipation of the Negroes in 1833, offering a partial compensation, but requiring—and it was perfectly fair, under the circumstances, to require—a considerable sacrifice from those who had previously been by law entitled to their labour. It was on the same principle that at the time the House made a provision to re-imburse, up to a certain point, the tithe-owners of Ireland in respect of the 771 tithes, which at that period had been generally and universally withheld, the State took over the claim, of the tithe-owner to the tithe, and compensated him, not entirely, but up to a certain point. On the same principle, when the State proceeded to the commutation of tithes in Ireland, it made a reduction of 25 per cent in the gross amount of the tithe, and enforced that measure, with that deduction, upon every tithe-owner in the country. Again, once more, when the State proceeded to deal with the commutation of tithes under the much milder circumstances of England, it took away, on the principle of general policy, for the ultimate benefit of all parties, from the English tithe-owner his undoubted legal right to his whole increment of the soil and tithes, leaving his income varied according to the variations of price that might prevail at subsequent times. I only advert to these matters to show that, in coming forward with the principle of compulsory compensation, there is nothing novel in our proposition, nor anything that ought to startle or repel, provided only that the plan be a plan formed in the spirit of general equity as between the parties among themselves, and as between the State and those parties separately. Now, Sir, I will go over the particulars of the plan, which very nearly corresponds in many points, if not in the main principle, with the clause in the Act of last year, and both in the main principle and in most of the details with the clause in the Bill of the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond). I take first, Sir, this point, that in the section of the Act of 1881, the application is a joint application of landlord and tenant. In the Bill of the hon. Member for New Ross it is an application by the tenant only. In the Bill that we propose it is an application either by the tenant or by the landlord. We think it equitable, in introducing this principle of compulsion, to make it a principle which shall be applicable to be brought into operation on the demand of either party. The limit of valuation, above which the measure shall not operate, was taken by the Bill of the hon. Member for New Ross from the Act of last year, and we still propose to adhere to it. It is the limit of Griffith's valuation—£30. That stands in our present Bill as it stands in the Act of 1881. Well then, Sir, we come to another pro- 772 vision, which is also common to the three schemes, and that is the requiring of the tenant the payment of a year's rent. The hon. Member for New Ross very justly and properly requires that the tenant should pay a year's rent, or whatever the landlord may be content to accept as a year's rent, in respect of the year from November, 1880, to November, 1881, and there we adhere to the principle which he has adopted, that principle being the same as that of the Act of 1881. The next principle is one that is not found in the Act of 1881, but it is one that has been adopted by the hon. Gentleman and his Coadjutors in the framing of their Bill, and, as we think, with great propriety. It is the requiring that the tenant shall give proof before a competent tribunal of his inability to pay before he shall come forward with a demand, on the one hand, upon the funds of the State—that is to say, upon the public funds—or, on the other hand, upon his landlord. We make, however, this difference—I do not know whether it is more a difference of detail than of principle—but we make a certain difference in that provision which has not been introduced into the Bill now before the House. The plan must be worked through the medium of the Land Commission. The payments must be worked through their medium. But, of course, it is not possible that the Land Commission themselves—namely, the Chief Commissioners, could be the proper or convenient recipients of the proof of the inability of the tenant to pay. Naturally, they look first of all to their own Sub-Commissioners—but we propose, also, that they shall be permitted to delegate that duty to the County Court Judges, so that the proof of the inability of the tenant to pay, which is to be essentially the condition of this title to profit by the Bill, may be made either before the Sub-Commissioners or before the County Court Judges. That is a provision which extends and widens the operation of the plan by giving increased facility to go before the Commission. Then the former plan—that of 1881—was a plan of advance, with a provision for repayments by instalments, extending over 15 years. This is now to be converted into a plan of pure gift, so far as the contribution of the State is concerned. The limitation of the amount is the same as that which was con- 773 tained in the Act of 1881. It was there applied to the loan; it is here to be applied to the gift or contribution of the State towards the liquidation of arrears—that is to say, it is to be an amount of payment which is not to exceed either one year's rent, or one-half of the total arrears which are to be dealt with. The House will understand that when we speak of arrears in the sense of this Bill, we do not include anything that refers to the payment between November, 1880, and November, 1881; but a year means what is anterior to those dates. Then, of course, it is a condition in this case that when the tenant shall have paid, or got quit of, by arrangement with the landlord, the year's rent from November, 1880, to November, 1881, and when the State shall have made its contribution, which cannot exceed one year's rent, nor can it exceed one-half of the total arrears that may be due, the whole of the rest of the arrears shall be cancelled and released altogether. That is the basis of the plan in its main particulars. There are some other points, however, that ought to be mentioned. We adopt a provision from the Act of 1881, under which it was provided that the parties might assign to the year 1881 any moneys paid by the tenant within 12 months before the passing of the Act. But the word "parties" there we modify, and we carry over the power to the Court. The parties were the proper persons to act under the Act of 1881, where the arrangement was entirely of a voluntary character; but here it is evidently the public authority that ought to decide whether the payment the tenant ought to make within a given time before the passing of the Act ought to be set down to the credit of the year 1880–1 or not. Some provision of this kind is quite necessary for the purposes of the Act. The case of estates in Ireland, it appears to me, so far as I can learn, is exceedingly different from the case of estates in England. In England, I apprehend, there are few estates that have not more or less of arrears draggling in their account; but for the most part they are very slight, and commonly very small, fragments of rent in arrear; so that while there are, perhaps, comparatively few estates absolutely and entirely without them, yet they are insignificant. In Ireland, on the contrary, it appears that 774 there are a large number of estates with no arrears whatever; but, on the other hand, there are a considerable number of estates which have what may be called inveterate arrears, many of them hopeless arrears—arrears that are traditional—which pass from father to son, and which are carried on in a sluggish and inert state; and payments received from the tenant, although made out of the proceeds of a particular year, are not set down to the credit of that year, but are set down and carried backwards to the credit of some former years in which the rent was not paid at all and with which these payments have nothing whatever to do. I do not discuss that system as a system now; but it is quite evident that it would be absurd, in view of that system, not to make some provision in an Act of this kind, under which sums that were really obtained by means of the crop and the industry of the year 1880–1 may be put down to the credit of that year. Well, Sir, there is a clause to this effect—it need not be dwelt upon; but it has reference to the circumstance, especially in Ireland, that there is a rateable distribution where the rent is due to any person other than the landlord. That is a sub-clause, which was in the Act of 1881 adopted by the hon. Gentleman, and which we also adopt from that 'Act. There was a clause in the Act of last year to provide that tenants evicted since a certain date should not be excluded from the benefit of the Act, and that provision we adopt and incorporate into the Bill that we shall lay upon the Table. Then I come to the time during which applications may be made under this plan, and the date that we propose to fix is the date of the 30th of June, 1883. That, of course, would not mean that all applications must have been disposed of at that date, but that all applications must have been regularly lodged. I think it will be felt that we have given a very ample time for making these applications. It is not desirable that it should be a very long one, and I think the period allowed is a very liberal period, and I know not whether a shorter one would be sufficient. At any rate, I think it is ample for its purpose. Then, as to the source from which the public contributions is to be derived, we follow the rule of the Act of 1881. We propose to take it, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for New 775 Ross (Mr. Redmond) proposed to take it, and as the Act of 1881 proposed to take it, from the Surplus of the Irish Church Temporalities; and should that prove insufficient, in so far as it may prove insufficient we propose to provide it from the Consolidated Fund. I ought, perhaps, here to say, as a matter of form, that I have not asked the House to go preliminarily into Committee, which, of course, would be required before any clause could be inserted in a Bill which touched the Consolidated Fund; but I should ask the House to go into Committee on that clause before we go into Committee on the Bill, and in that way the Forms of the House would be complied with. It would not have been a convenient opportunity for explaining the details of the Bill, and on that account we have postponed the time for asking the formal sanction of the House. Then there is a provision of the Act of 1881 which has the effect of applying the peculiar Irish law known as equity of redemption, giving six months for redemption to the evicted tenant, to this Bill, and to say that a person having the benefit of this six months equity of redemption may be entitled to come under this Bill, and obtain the relief which it gives him in respect of arrears. I believe I have now gone over all the points that I need mention to the House. But, with respect to the amounts, I ought, perhaps, to give the House as much information as I can. It will be naturally inquired what is the probable amount of the demand that may be made for the liquidation of these arrears, in order to give effect to the Bill as a whole, and how much of that amount we expect to be able to draw from the Church Surplus. In submitting any estimate on a subject of this kind to the House, I do it with a fair warning that it is impossible to ascertain with any approach to strict accuracy the particulars I am going to mention. We have in Ireland very able officers, who have given their minds to this subject, and I speak with some degree of confidence; but the House will observe that, in regard to such a question as to the total amount of arrears of rent outstanding in a country, the very nature of the subject shows that, as these arrears are in no way within the cognizance of any ordinary public authority, any estimate which may be made of 776 them must be received with indulgence. As regards the value of the Church Surplus, after it has satisfied the claims already established against it, I can speak with a nearer approach to appreciation; and what I should say is this—that the value of the Church Surplus not already pledged for the purposes for which it has been already used will not be more than £1,500,000; and I have no reason to believe that the claims which, under this Bill, would be made on the public funds for the liquidation of arrears would exceed, if they reach, the sum of £2,000,000. I do not think it would be prudent to state them at an amount lower than that; but I am bound to say, in regard to a question of this kind, that I think it is a very serious responsibility to deal with it at all. It is a subject of the utmost difficulty; and the precedent it establishes is of so grave a character, that nothing but a very strong sense of public necessity ought to induce us to meddle with it. But if you do undertake to meddle with it, in my opinion, it is better that the plan should satisfy, not only the condition of being generally equitable as between the parties affected, but likewise the condition of being effectual. I entirely concur with those who think that if we are to grant the public money for a purpose of this kind—and it is quite clear to me that no method except that of compulsion, combined with granting, will attain the object we have in view—if we are to do that in regard to so great an object as the contentment and tranquillity of a country, it is not a matter in which we ought too nicely and too narrowly to reckon the precise amount which we may be called upon to give. I believe these are all the particulars that have to be mentioned to the House. With regard to the measure itself, I may be asked how do I propose to proceed with it. Well, Sir, the facilities we may have in proceeding with this measure must depend, in the first place, upon the reception which the measure meets with from, the House, and the favour which is accorded it; and, in the second place, on the progress which we may make with another measure of importance already before the House. We cannot displace—we should not feel ourselves justified in displacing—the Bill for the Prevention of Crime in Ireland from the place it occu- 777 pies as first in its demands on the time of the House. But that is a Bill involving a considerable number of particulars, and one which it is obvious has some demand, though I hope not a very great demand, on the time of the House. With regard to the plan I now submit, the case, I think, is different. I do not think it is possible there can be a great deal of room for criticism of details It may in the main be a question, "Ought we to deal with the subject of Arrears of Rent in Ireland?" If we ought, then I feel that it would be inexpedient and futile to enter into minute details upon secondary points, and that by far the best course the House can take, if they entertain the question at all, is to view these details with some degree of indulgence, and to keep in view as a desirable object the rapid and easy passing of a measure for the benefit of the people of Ireland. Having said what I have frankly with respect to the measure for the prevention of crime, I shall, notwithstanding, be very glad to look for any intervals or interstices of time in which this measure, if it prove generally acceptable, may be put forward. That is the statement which I have to make to the House; and I very sincerely hope, for the sake of all persons concerned in the settlement of the Land Question in Ireland, that the House may be disposed to take a favourable view of the scheme, and to allow it rapidly to take its place upon the Statute Book.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision respecting certain Arrears of Kent in Ireland."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
Sir, it is generally a wise rule, I think, to abstain from offering any criticism upon an important Bill introduced by the Government at the first moment the statement is made with respect to it. Generally speaking, we are wise in waiting until we see on paper the provisions of the measure submitted to us; and even in the present case, I am not disposed widely to depart from that principle, though, I admit, there is a distinction between the present case and those we ordinarily have before us—for, although this is a measure for the first time brought before us by the Government, we can hardly regard it as an entirely new one. The speech of the right hon. 778 Gentleman leads me to suppose that he must be prepared to ask the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) to put his name on the back of the Bill. A portion of the measure is founded on the Bill which was before us a fortnight ago on the Motion of the hon. Member for New Ross, with this difference, however, that the hon. Member for New Ross brought in a Bill which was intended to deal with all the points which he thought had yet to be dealt with in respect to the Land Law Amendment Bill, whereas the Government measure is confined to a single one of those points. The hon. Member for New Rosa, undoubtedly, did propose a scheme for dealing with the Arrears Question; but he also proposed to deal with the Purchase Clauses and other matters. The Government propose to deal with arrears alone; and, inasmuch as in the proposal that they make they tell us that they intend to absorb the whole of the Church Surplus, and, something more, they utterly destroy the possibility of dealing with many of the other questions which arise, and in reference to which the Church Surplus might, perhaps, have been called into play. If we had been discussing the Bill of the hon. Member for New Ross, we might have considered how far it was right to apply the Church Surplus to one purpose or the other. If we apply the whole of the Church Surplus to the purpose of arrears, nothing will be left to apply either to the development of the Purchase Clauses, or to the development of what, I think, is very important—the Emigration Clauses. That being so, we have to consider this Bill upon its own merits; and I think that what has been said is sufficient to give us great matter for reflection. Evidently, it is in the contemplation of the Government that a contribution should be made, not only from a purely Irish fund—the Surplus of the Church Temporalities—but also from the Consolidated Fund, for the purpose which is stated—the purpose of extinguishing the claims of the landlords for the arrears of rent; and that claim is to be extinguished upon the principle of compulsion and upon the principle of gift. I do not, at this moment, attempt to discuss that question. It is a proposal that was made by the hon. Member for New Ross; it is a proposal that was contained in that remarkable letter which 779 we heard read earlier in the evening by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). Of course, I understand there was no bargain in the matter; but, somehow or other, the views that were put forward by the hon. Member for the City of Cork have been accepted by the Government, and they are those which are to be proposed to us. That is a step which is taken by the Government entirely irrespective of any bargain. I can only hope that the view of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, that it will be in the power of himself and his Friends hereafter to support the Liberal Party in the promotion of Liberal principles, will have effect given to it without any reference to any bargain whatever. Well, we shall have to deal with this question upon its own merits; and I will say a more difficult question, or one that requires to be approached more entirely from the point of the responsibility of the Government, without reference to the opinion of this or that section, but with reference to their own opinion as to the true merits of the question, I have never known. What have you to do? You have a case in which there are large sums due from tenants to landlords in respect of rent in arrear. A considerable proportion, at all events, of the sums so due are due from persons who could pay, but who have declined to pay. They have declined to pay, not upon their own suggestion, but upon the suggestion of an organization with which we have had to deal, and which is a difficult element in the government of Ireland. You are going to say to these persons—"If you cannot pay, your liabilities are going to be discharged, at the expense, partly of a great Irish fund which is available for the whole country, and partly at the expense of the Imperial Exchequer." What are you going to do with regard to persons who have paid their rent up to the present—have paid not only at considerable sacrifices to themselves, but, I think, under circumstances which, no doubt, made it very inconvenient, and also under circumstances of considerable danger; because not only have they undergone considerable privations in order to make up the money necessary to discharge the claims of their landlords, but they have had to run the risk of being "Boycotted," and having their houses burned, or of being mutilated, or perhaps 780 actually murdered—and the only complaint against them was that they had paid their rent? Are you going to consider the cases of all those persons, so that you may do equal justice? Will it be possible for you to find out that the persons who are to be relieved in the way proposed are really persons who could not pay? And there is another question I might ask—Are you going, when you make this provision for meeting the case of those who are behind in their rents, to do anything for those persons who, we have reason to believe, are indebted to their tradesmen or their bankers? Are you satisfied that you will meet the whole case of those who have grievances in Ireland by such a measure as this, or are you not? I do not wish, at the present moment, to pronounce any opinion upon these questions, for they are questions which require very careful consideration. I do not, of course, object to the introduction of the Bill. We shall see what the Bill is like when it is placed on the Table. I only make these observations in order to point out the extreme difficulty of the matter; and I think we ought to have had some further argument than that which has been presented to us why this advance should be made by way of gift rather than of loan. I believe that any gentleman well acquainted with the state of Ireland would have rather recommended that loans on a different principle should be made, and that repayment should be asked for from those who have been assisted in this way. Everyone must feel the desirability, however, of settling this question, if it can be settled. My own belief is that it could be settled by way of loan; but I do not wish to pronounce any final opinion. I think it is well we ought to know what are the opinions of the hon. Members for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) and the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and also of Gentlemen in other parts of the House well acquainted with the condition of Ireland. I must say that I look at this proposal with anything but complete satisfaction; and though I am ready to assent to the introduction of the Bill, I think we ought to have full and fair time for the discussion of the measure, and for the consideration of its principles.

§ MR. SHAW
rose to express his gratification that the Government had decided to deal at once with this question. He 781 did not, however, hesitate to say he did not approve of the principle on which the Government proposed to proceed. He was strongly in favour of the matter being dealt with by way of loan, and not by way of gift; but he was so alive to the importance of settling the question, which he considered was so much at the foundation of much of the evil that existed in Ireland, that he would not for a moment think of putting forward his views in any way that would embarrass the Government, or prevent them in settling the matter in the way they had decided upon. There were, perhaps, one or two things that probably the Government might re-consider before the second reading of the Bill. The limit of £30 was one which need not be adhered to. It might very advantageously be raised to £100; because if they left a margin of dissatisfaction and unrest of that kind they would fail to settle the question. It appeared that the Government intended some time this year to deal with the question of purchase. He hoped they would do so as soon as possible, because one of the greatest difficulties they had in Ireland was the unsettledness of the Purchase Question. It would be much better to at once grapple with the whole question and settle it, so that the mind of the people could be at rest. The people would know then what they had to expect; they would know they need not agitate their minds looking for impossibilities, but that they had better set to work on some real and substantial basis. He hoped the Government would see their way to give an early day for the consideration of the question. He assumed they considered the Bill they had brought in for the Prevention of Crime of great importance, and he would not in any way interfere with their views on that question; but he was convinced of this, that the measure introduced tonight would have more effect than anything else in pacifying the country, and he trusted that, even at the risk of interfering with other Business, the Government would not hesitate to give an early day for the consideration of the Bill.

§ MR. O'SHEA
said, he would not intrude on the House at that hour (12.40), if it were not that he felt that unless he made an explanation with regard to what took place earlier in the evening, a very grave injustice would be done to the Go- 782 vernment, to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and to himself. He would be as brief as possible; but, in order to put the matter clearly before the House, he hoped the House would grant him its patience. It had been his intention to visit Ireland during the Easter Recess, but he was prevented by illness. About that time he received, many communications, verbal and written, respecting eviction on the one hand, and demoralization on the other. He had many cases placed before him, in which it was clear the end of forbearance was at hand, and those cases were not all cases in which the landlord was the creditor; many of them were cases in which the landlord was the debtor. The appeals of "suspects" for his good offices were multiplied. He had received visits from four representative tenant farmers from the counties of Clare and Limerick; he had before him evidence to show that the action and manner of some of the superior Resident Magistrates was driving the ordinary Resident Magistrates into a state which was nothing better than a veiled mutiny; he had received anonymous letters—evidently from members of the Constabulary—including an early copy of that Circular issued by County Inspector Smith, the reading of the withdrawal of which was the last important Parliamentary utterance of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) as Chief Secretary; clergymen, tenants, landlords alike, were impressing upon him the immense dangers arising out of the burning question of arrears. But throughout all he observed there was a general sense of weariness—a state most conducive to the proposal of a truce and to the ultimate hope of a permanent peace. In England, too, people were comparing notes as to the statements made by the right hon. Member for Bradford during the debates of last year, and the right hon. Member had been reduced at least to the rank of a minor prophet in his own country. Under these circumstances, on the 8th of April, he (Mr. O'Shea) wrote to the Prime Minister, determined, in case the right hon. Gentleman's reply should admit of it, to take the liberty of submitting to him a statement on Irish affairs as they presented themselves to his poor judgment. Three days afterwards, quite unexpectedly, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Par- 783 nell) called on him. Many things had happened since he had seen the hon. Member last. The last interview he had with him was in Dublin, two or three days before his arrest, when he ventured to offer him some admirable advice, to which he must do him the justice to say the hon. Member did not pay the slightest attention. On the 11th of April—that was the day on which he saw his hon. Friend in London, the day on which he was on his way to Paris on parole—his hon. Friend told, him that his wish was to abstain from any course which might be construed into hostile political action; that he was extremely anxious to avoid all demonstrations. Their conversation, indeed, was merely that of personal friends, and certainly not of political allies, which the House was aware they had never been held to exactly be. Although he made no remark at the time, he observed, with surprise, there was a total absence in the hon. Member of rancour or ill-feeling. On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman told him of the kindness and consideration he had received in Kilmainham, and asked him to bring forward another Irish grievance in Committee of Supply, and that was, that prison officials in Ireland were very much worse paid than the prison officials of England. When he (Mr. O'Shea) expressed his opinion that the continued imprisonment of the "suspects" was exercising a most pernicious effect in Ireland, and his hope that the Government would make his release permanent, the hon. Member replied—and he afterwards took a note of what the hon. Gentleman had said—"Never mind the 'suspects;' we can well afford to see the Coercion Act out. If you have any influence, do not fritter it away upon us; use it to get the arrears practically adjusted. Impress on everyone your own opinion as to the necessity of making the contribution from the State a gift, and not a loan; and, further, the equal necessity of absolute compulsion. The great object of my life," added the hon. Member, "is to settle the Land Question. Now that the Tories have adopted my view as to peasant proprietary, the ex-tension of the Purchase Clauses is safe. You have always supported the leaseholders as strongly as myself; but the great object now is to stay eviction by the introduction of an Arrears Bill." 784 He (Mr. O'Shea) proceeded then to speak of the demoralization of the country, of the "no-rent" manifesto, of "Captain Moonlight," and of other intimidators. The hon. Gentleman replied—"Let eviction cease, and terrorism will cease. The 'Moonlighters' are sons of small tenants threatened with eviction, who believe the only escape for themselves and families is by preventing their more solvent neighbours paying their rent." He (Mr. O'Shea) remarked that he doubted very much whether the Government would do anything in the direction the hon. Member had indicated with regard to arrears. He then, indeed, feared the Chancellor of the Exchequer took far too paternal an interest in the Public Purse ever to do anything of the kind. "But," said he (Mr. O'Shea), "suppose that, foreseeing the dreadful state of Ireland, which must be consequent upon the eviction of scores of thousands of families, the Government should rise to the situation, and that a satisfactory settlement of the Arrears Question should be made, should you not consider it your duty to use your immense personal influence for the purpose of assisting in the preservation of law and order in Ireland?" The hon. Gentleman replied, "Most undoubtedly." He (Mr. O'Shea) immediately dropped the conversation, and the hon. Gentleman shortly afterwards left for Paris. The next day he had a note from the Prime Minister, and on the 13th he sent the right hon. Gentleman the statement on Irish affairs of which he had just spoken, which statement the hon. Member for the City of Cork had never seen to the present day. He thought it right to mention in his statement to the Prime Minister that he had seen the hon. Member for the City of Cork, but that he was ignorant of any intention on his (Mr. O'Shea's) part to write. On the 15th of April he received the following letter from the Prime Minister:— Dear Sir,—I have this day received your letter of the 13th, and I will communicate with Mr. Forster on the important and varied matter which it contains. I will not now enter upon any portion of that matter, but will simply say that no apology can be required either for the length or freedom of your letter. On the contrary, both demand my acknowledgment. I am very sensible of the spirit in which you write. I think you assume the existence of a spirit on my part, with which you can sympathize. Whether there can be any agreement upon the 785 means or not, the end in view is of vast moment, and assuredly no resentment, or personal prejudice, or false shame, or other impediment extraneous to the matter will prevent the Government from treading whatever path may most safely and shortly lead to the pacification of Ireland. He thought the great majority in the House, and the great majority of the people, would consider that those were noble words. Two policies seemed to be propounded by public speakers and public writers—the one, a total disregard of every opinion outside a limited circle; the other, an impartial examination of broader views, and their adoption, if they proved to be sound. The one might be "the blind leading the blind;" the other might result in the advantages which the prudent general sought on the line of march by the interrogation of the intelligent native. He also wrote to the President of the Board of Trade, inclosing a copy of his letter to the Prime Minister. He received from the right hon. Gentleman an answer which contained food for reflection on both sides of the Channel. The right hon. Gentleman wrote— My Dear Sir,—I am really very much obliged to you for your letter, and especially for the copy of your important and interesting communication to Mr. Gladstone. I am not in a position, as you well understand, to write you fully on the subject, but I think I may say that there appears to me nothing in your proposals which does not deserve consideration. I entirely concur in your view, that it is the duty of the Government to lose no opportunity to acquaint themselves with representative opinion in Ireland, and for that purpose that we ought to welcome suggestion and criticism from what ever quarter, and all sections and classes of Irishmen, provided they are animated by a desire for good government, and not by a blind hatred of all government whatever. There is one thing you must bear in mind, that if the Government and the Liberal Party generally are bound to show greater consideration than they have hitherto done for Irish opinion, on the other hand, the leaders of the Irish Party must pay some attention to public opinion in England and Scotland. Since the present Government have been in Office, they have not had the slightest assistance in this direction. On the contrary, some Irish Members have acted as if their object were to embitter and prejudice all English opinion. The result is that nothing would be easier than at the present moment to get up, in every large town, an anti-Irish agitation, almost as formidable as the anti-Jewish agitation in Russia. I fail to see how Irishmen or Ireland can profit by such a policy, and I shall rejoice whenever the time comes that a more conciliatory spirit is manifested on both sides.—Believe me, yours very truly, J. CHAMBERLAIN. 786 Thus inspired with confidence, he (Mr. O'Shea) had many conversations with Members of the Government, including several with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), in which, while all compromise or bargain was effectually excluded, he endeavoured, and he was proud to say he endeavoured successfully, to remove many prejudices and misunderstandings. Of course, ulterior events proved to him that he was mistaken with regard to the right hon. Member for Bradford; but really, at one time, in fact, nearly up to the end, he had very good reasons on which to build the hope that he had made some impression upon the right hon. Member for Bradford. He had opportunities of more ample communication with the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) on his return from Paris on his way to Kilmainham. The general effect of what had occurred was apparent in the debate of last Wednesday fortnight, when hon. Gentlemen opposite were dismayed by the intrusion of unexpected and unwelcome courtesies. He wrote to the hon. Member for Cork City his impressions of that debate, and in reply his hon. Friend wrote him the letter which was read to the House this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Bradford very kindly gave him leave to correspond privately with the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and it was the right hon. Member, of course, who gave him a pass into Kilmainham; and if there was any secrecy about the thing, it was conceived and contrived by the right hon. Member himself. When he went to Kilmainham, he had nothing whatever to say to the hon. Member for the City of Cork with regard to his release. He knew nothing about it, and he supposed no one knew anything about it until the beginning of the next week. His conversation with the hon. Member was long and general; but he had no hesitation in saying to the House that he took a very great interest in the matter, and went very largely into the necessity of the withdrawal of the "no rent" manifesto. He was glad to ascertain in Kilmainham from the hon. Member that it had already been withdrawn.

§ MR. PARNELL
The words were "ceased to circulate it."

§ MR. O'SHEA
knew that they were tantamount to its withdrawal. The impression clearly meant to be left in his mind 787 was, that it was withdrawn. As to the omission of the sentence from the letter which had been read early in the evening, what occurred was this. He was, as he had just said, in constant communication with the right hon. Member for Bradford, and on Sunday morning, the 30th of April, he handed to the right hon. Gentleman the letter in question. He believed that the hon. Member for the City of Cork considered that he ought not to have handed the letter to the right hon. Gentleman individually; but as he knew that the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) had already told the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) and himself (Mr. O'Shea) that there was no secrecy whatever about his opinions, he used his discretion, or his indiscretion, as the case might be. But he (Mr. O'Shea) was as strongly opposed to the idea of any bargain as any Member of the Government; and it struck him in the course of that same afternoon that one phrase might be misunderstood by the only persons who he could have ever supposed would see it—namely, the Members of the Cabinet. The next morning he saw a Cabinet Minister, and he said to him that he considered his authority extended to the use of his own judgment in such a matter; and, in order that no Member of the Cabinet should suppose that there was any bid for release, he begged that the sentence in question should be expunged. He had no reason to doubt that the passage had in consequence been expunged. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had kept no copy of the letter, and he believed it was on Friday last that he asked him for one. He then wrote out what he believed to be a true copy of the letter. One thing, however, he wished the House to understand, and that was, that if any blame attached to this matter, it was altogether his own; and, therefore, he hoped that the House would acquit the hon. Member for Cork City of having any idea that there was an omission when he read the letter that afternoon. He wished the right hon. Member for Bradford would be a little more tolerant. There were, he fancied, very few politicians who had joined in agitations and political struggles who had not, at some time or another, used words which they afterwards wished they could recall, and it might even be that such a Purist as the 788 right hon. Gentleman had occasionally spoken a little more strongly than was necessary, or, for aught he knew, joined in movements which at the present day he did not approve. Much as he differed from the right hon. Member during his tenure of Office, he had never persecuted him, and on that he founded his appeal. He acknowledged that the right hon. Gentleman had been very cruelly baited while he was Chief Secretary for Ireland. But the "Bear" was now loose. He had no doubt that it was very soothing to the right hon. Gentleman's feelings to aggravate the hon. Member for the City of Cork, but it was not for the public benefit that any obstacle should be thrown in the way of that hon. Member's intended action, as expressed in the letter of to-day, and, therefore, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would accommodate himself to the situation, and turn his eyes from the exaggerations of the past to the possibilities of the future.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
I am sorry that, in the consideration of this very important question of the arrears, it should be necessary to allude to this special and personal matter; but, after the speech of the hon. Member for Clare, it is incumbent on me to do so. I am afraid, from what he said, that I must state all that I know about this matter. To a great extent I agree with the hon. Member that the circumstance arose out of a letter from the hon. Member for Clare to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend knows very well that he sent me that letter, and that when I sent it back to him, I took precisely the same view as that which I stated I had taken a few days ago in the House when explaining my motives for resignation. However, the negotiations or correspondence went on. The hon. Member says he was in constant communication with me. I certainly did see him a few times; but his communication was to a great extent in respect of letters to the Prime Minister, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The time came when it appeared to be desirable to the hon. Member for Clare and others, that he (Mr. O'Shea) should see the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) at Kilmainham. There was a Question by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) on the Friday, 789 I believe, as to what would be done with regard to the Members of Parliament who were under arrest. It was a Question addressed to me. I happened to see the hon. Member for Clare, and I told him the answer that I thought should be given. The Question was as to whether the Government would release those Members or not, and my reply was exactly in the same direction as that which the House knows to be my opinion. I told him I thought we could release them whenever Ireland became quiet; or when the Government got a fresh Bill passed; or obtained from them without any conditions whatever an assurance that they would not break the law. I was not very exigient. I did not ask them to assist in keeping the law, but simply not to break it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not approve of my giving that answer; and the consequence was that the Question was not answered by me, but by him. The hon. Member for Clare then went to Kilmainham, and I certainly facilitated his seeing the hon. Member for the City of Cork. I did that on precisely the same ground on which I had facilitated many visits to persons detained under the Protection Act. Whenever I had reason to hope, or believe, or had any sort of expectation, that the result of the visits would be such a promise of good behaviour as would enable me with safety to recommend the release of persons detained, I was very glad to promote such visits. I cannot say I was very sanguine as to the result of the visit of the hon. Member for Clare. However, the hon. Member went to Kilmainham, and when he returned he came to see me on Sunday morning. I am afraid I must really state the impression which his conversation on his return gave me. I took a memorandum of that conversation at the time, and I shall be glad if the hon. Member will correct me if I have made any mistake. This was the memorandum which I sent to the Prime Minister and circulated amongst my Colleagues— After telling me that he had been from 11 to 5 yesterday with Parnell, O'Shea gave me his letter to him, saying that he hoped it would be a satisfactory expression of union with the Liberal Party. After carefully reading it, I said to him, 'Is that all, do you think, that Parnell would be inclined to say?' He said, 'What more do you want? Doubtless I could supple- 790 ment.' I said, 'It comes to this—that upon our doing certain things he will help us to prevent outrages'—or words to that effect. He again said, 'How can I supplement it?'—referring, I imagine, to different measures. I did not feel justified in giving him my own opinion, which might be interpreted to be that of the Cabinet, so I said I had better show the letter to Mr. Gladstone and one or two others. He said, 'Well, there may be fault in expression, but the thing is done; if these words will not do, I must get others, but what is obtained is' (and here he used most remarkable words) 'that the conspiracy which has been used to get up boycotting and outrages will now be used to put them down.

§ MR. O'SHEA
As the right hon. gentleman asked me to confirm the words of his memorandum, I must say I cannot confirm that expression at all. I did not use the word "conspiracy;" "organization" is, I believe, the word I used.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
I took it down shortly afterwards. However, I do not see much difference between the words. The memorandum proceeds— And that there will be a union in the Liberal Party. And as an illustration of how the first of these results was to be obtained, he said that Parnell hoped to make use of a certain person, and get him back from abroad, as he would be able to help him to put down conspiracy or agitation—I am not sure which word was used—as he knew all its details in the West. I added, for the information of my Colleagues— This last statement is quite true—this man"— I will give his name if required. [Cries of "Name!"] It is Sheridan— Is a released 'suspect,' against whom we have for some time had a fresh warrant, and who, under disguises, has hitherto eluded the police, coming backwards and forwards from Egan to the outragemongers in the West. I did not feel myself sufficiently master of the situation to let him see what I thought of this confidence; but I again told him that I could not do more at present than tell others what he had told me. That was the information which the hon. Member gave, and which strongly influenced my action. The hon. Gentleman says I ought to accommodate myself to the situation. What was the situation? It was this. The hon. Member for the City of Cork, some other Members, and many persons, had been imprisoned because we had reason to believe and suspect—we had strong reason to believe—that they were engaged in a course of lawless intimidation. There 791 had been no apology for that conduct, and there had been no statement made that it would be given up. The hon. Member alludes to some words which, I suppose, are those quoted by me from the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) at Ennis. They were only illustrative of the whole course of the agitation and the whole conduct of the movement, in order to stop which it had been necessary to imprison the persons in question. Now, the situation is this. I was informed that if certain things were done, if a Bill were brought forward, on the merits of which I do not wish to speak now—there is a very great deal to be said in favour of it—that if that were brought forward, then the hon. Member would cease from his illegal course, and would strive to help the law. And the illustration that was given was one that perfectly surprised me. It gave me a sort of insight into what had been happening which I did not possess before—that a man whom I knew, so far as I had any possibility of knowing, was engaged in these outrages, was so far under the influence of the hon. Member for the City of Cork that, upon his release, he would get the assistance of that man to put down the very state of things which he had been promoting. Sir, I came away from that interview with this feeling—that I was very sorry I had had anything whatever to do with the negotiation, although all I had to do with it was to try to get from the hon. Member for the City of Cork a promise not to break the law. I felt I would have nothing more to do with it, because, if it was possible to injure the power of the Government in Ireland, and to make it more difficult to preserve order, it was by entering into any arrangements with a Gentleman who said—"If I can get certain things done, then I will no longer instigate a breach of the law; I will try to help you to keep it, and I will even make use of agents who have been used for the purpose of outrages to put them down." Sir, I have done.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he was glad that the Government had announced their intention of dealing with the question of arrears, because he believed by a settlement on the lines indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister the pacification of Ireland would be better secured than by any number 792 of Coercion Bills such as that which was introduced the other evening. He wished to express his thanks to the hon. Member for the county of Clare (Mr. O'Shea) for the very able and clear statement he had made of what had passed between himself and that hon. Member. The letter which he wrote to the hon. Member was marked "private and confidential." On his hon. Friend's visit to him in Kilmainham, he asked for and obtained his permission to show it to one other person. He did not wish to find fault with him for having handed it to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, although, certainly, he had no intention that it should have fallen into his hands; but, as he had said, he did not wish to find fault with his hon. Friend for the responsibility he had taken upon himself in this matter. He had felt, with reference to the question of arrears in Ireland, as relating to the situation of the smaller tenants, the very gravest anxiety and responsibility for many months; and he was rejoiced that the hon. Member had found some way of placing the views of himself and those with him before the Government. They had been aware, from what they had seen in the newspapers, and from the information of prisoners who came in from time to time, and who received letters from different parts of the country, that evictions in large and very much greater numbers than had occurred up to the present, were imminent, unless some such proposal as the Prime Minister had announced were made in regard to arrears. They had anticipated that there would be three times as many evictions in the present quarter of the year as there were in the first quarter, when 7,000 persons were turned out of their homes. They had also every reason to believe that, owing to the fact that the smaller tenantry in Mayo, Galway, Sligo, and parts of Roscommon, Donegal, Leitrim, and Kerry, were sunk in arrears to the extent of three or four years—in many cases four or five or six years, and in some cases 10 or 12 years—the year's or half-year's rent, by the payment of which the tenants had obtained a temporary respite from eviction, would be but a temporary respite, and that the coming winter would see evictions resumed against the smaller tenants to an extent never witnessed in the country 793 since 1848. They feared, also, that the outrages, which had been so numerous during the last six months, would increase as the winter came on; and that a state of affairs in Ireland would follow, owing to the non-settlement of this question, the end of which they could not possibly foresee. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary had given his account of the conversation which he held with the hon. Member for the county of Clare, in which a certain statement was made as to what he (Mr. Parnell) would do in the event of the Arrears Question being settled. He thought the expression was used, that the same organization which had been used to promote outrages would be used to put them down. [Mr. O'SHEA dissented.] His hon. Friend shook his head at that, and he was glad to see that he did so, because if his hon. Friend had been under the impression that he had used any expression of the kind, or that he had conveyed to him any such impression in any conversation with him, he was entirely mistaken. What he had attempted to convey to him was, that, in his belief, the persons who were taking part in these "Moonlight" outrages, which he could assure the House he had heard condemned in Kilmainham in the strongest terms, and which were exceedingly repugnant to their feelings—[Opposition laughter]—he was, perhaps, much better able to speak of the actual feelings of his fellow-prisoners than those who laughed—were the smaller tenantry on the estates who were unable to pay their rent, and who were attempting to intimidate or coerce the larger tenantry who were able to pay, in order that they might not be evicted after the landlords had obtained the bulk of their rents from the larger tenants. He believed that these smaller tenants felt that their only protection was to keep the larger tenantry from paying their rents, so that the landlords, after the deprivation of their rents, might be compelled to come to terms, and allow the smaller tenantry not to pay anything. That was the origin of the movement, which was directed against a class who could pay, and its object was to prevent them paying, in order that the smaller tenantry should be saved from eviction and allowed to remain on the estate. That was the reason why he had been so anxious to press for a settlement of 794 the question of arrears; and it might, perhaps, be in the recollection of the House that last year, when the question as to the tenants who could pay and those who could not pay was raised, he had publicly offered to advise those who could pay to do so, if those who could not were saved from eviction. The Prime Minister at the time appeared to be very much impressed with that statement; but, unfortunately, it was not possible to obtain the introduction of a practical method of settling the arrears into the Bill of last year. Those arrears were, in consequence, still outstanding, and the state of affairs which existed then existed to-day; the only way in which the smaller tenantry could protect themselves being to get the larger tenantry to refuse to pay rent until fair terms were extended to the former class. He had no hesitation in saying that, in the face of such a measure as the Prime Minister had proposed, this state of affairs entirely ceased. It came to an end, because the smaller tenantry would be efficiently protected by the measure of the right hon. Gentleman; and there would be no longer an excuse, he would not say for the commission of "Moonlight" outrages, but for getting the larger tenantry to refuse to pay their rent, in order to protect the smaller tenantry. Now, with regard to Mr. Sheridan's name, which had been introduced into this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman said he had information with regard to Mr. Sheridan. He knew nothing of that. But, certainly, his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Shea) must have entirely misunderstood what, he believed, he had conveyed to him with regard to Mr. Sheridan's return to Ireland. He (Mr. Parnell) had asked that Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Egan might be permitted to come back, in the event of this question being settled. He also mentioned Mr. Davitt's name, saying that it was of great importance that Mr. Davitt should be released. Mr. Sheridan was—and he had so told his hon. Friend—one of the chief organizers of the Land League in Connaught. He had told his hon. Friend that if Mr. Sheridan were permitted to return to Ireland, he believed he would be able to use his influence to discourage the commission of outrages, and to induce the tenantry to accept this settlement of the Arrears Question. This influence, however, was one solely arising 795 from a knowledge which he understood Mr. Sheridan to have obtained during the time he was acting as an organizer of the Land League. As to the information which the late Chief Secretary now gave the House, it had come upon him entirely by surprise; and he could not understand how it was that the right hon. Gentleman had been able, in the statement he had just made to the House, to represent the hon. Gentleman as having stated that he (Mr. Parnell) was in any way aware of that information.

§ MR. O'SHEA
said, he wished to say, by way of a personal explanation, that what had fallen from the hon. Member for the City of Cork was absolutely correct. The hon. Member had told him nothing, and he (Mr. O'Shea) knew nothing, as to Mr. Sheridan having been suspected of having been engaged in the commission of crime.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he knew Mr. Sheridan; he had seen him on several occasions, and he had had no reason to believe that he had ever incited to the commission of any crime. He believed so still; and, certainly, the statement the right hon. Gentleman had made had come upon him entirely by surprise. He had believed that it would have been well to have permitted Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Egan to have returned to Ireland, and he believed so still. As to Mr. Davitt, he was the only person whose release he had spoken of. He knew that this gentleman had used the most strenuous exertions to prevent the commission of crime and outrage in Ireland, and that those exertions had, on many occasions, been successful. If Mr. Davitt had been released, he believed he would have been of great assistance in discovering the perpetrators of crime, just as he believed that Mr. Sheridan would have been of most important assistance in preventing crime in Ireland.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
said, he thought that whatever was said about these matter, hon. Gentlemen would still be disposed to form their own conclusions. Discussion upon this subject would not in the slightest degree assist the House in determining the value of the Prime Minister's statement upon the subject of arrears. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) would extend a very simple invitation to those who were interested in the Treaty of Kilmainham, which was to forget all about it as soon as possible, 796 and to seize this opportunity of making a new treaty, not with the representatives of any political organization in Ireland, but with the landlords and tenants, who represented the whole body of that country. The proposal of the Prime Minister was one that he knew would be of enormous advantage to the poor tenants in Ireland, who did not belong to the class of whom it had been said, "They can afford to, but they will not, pay;" but who belonged to the class who could not possibly pay, unless they were aided by some such measure as this. Representing, as he did, a large number of small tenant farmers, who had not been brought under the influence of the "no rent" manifesto, and who were anxious to honestly discharge their obligations, he heartily thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the introduction of the measure. He joined with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in saying that it would do more for the pacification of Ireland than the most stringent Coercion Bill Her Majesty's Government could possibly pass. He hoped, therefore, the Prime Minister would not fail in his promise to avail himself of every interval of time, no matter how small that interval might be, to make progress with this measure and pass it through the House. He was sure the measure was one which would be availed of by both landlords and tenants; and as it could be availed of by either party on strictly equitable grounds, he did not see that it could produce any evil effects whatever in its operation. The House was always ready to listen with more than respect—with profound respect—to any remarks which the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) made, especially on a financial question; and he was sure that when they got a further opportunity of discussing these financial proposals, they would pay the greatest attention to the right hon. Gentleman's views. But the right hon. Gentleman asked, "If the tenants who have not paid their rent are, under the provisions of this Bill, to be relieved, what are you to do with the tenants who have already paid?" He (Mr. O'Connor Power) would answer the question in a very simple way. The tenants who had paid already, under trying circumstances, would, in his judgment, make very good material from which to 797 commence the creation of that peasant proprietary which the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith) was so anxious to create in Ireland. Let those solvent tenants who, under very difficult circumstances, had paid their rents, be converted as speedily as possible into tenant proprietors. There was no reason, however, why they should multiply difficulties. If tenants had paid their rents, then there was an end of the matter, so far as those tenants were concerned. If Parliament could devise some system of judicial rent, which would prevent the tenants from having to pay exorbitant rents in future, they would, no doubt, bring about a good result; but there could be no profit in going back to the consideration of liabilities that had been discharged. He hoped, therefore, the House would give a favourable reception to this measure, which was one of a constructive character. They would show a better sense of the requirements of society in Ireland, by giving a favourable reception to this measure, than they would by indulging in barren personal discussions, which were of no practical value whatever.

§ DR. LYONS
said, he desired to say a few words on this question, because he might justly describe himself as the original patentee of this scheme, as he was the first person, two years ago, to bring it before the notice of the House, when he brought forward, on August 6, 1880, a proposal for an Address to the Crown for an advance, by way of loan, of £2,000,000 out of the Church Surplus, with a view of assisting distressed tenants who were unable to meet their engagements in the shape of rent. He had not, however, the good fortune to secure sufficiently the attention of the House or of the Government to the proposal. He had then endeavoured to describe what they had to anticipate if the leading creditor of the tenant—namely, the landlord, were to press him for the payment of rent, and he was justified in saying that had the proposal then been entertained they would have been saved much of the horror they had passed through during the last two years. He had then stated in The Times— Of the gravity of the situation in Ireland no doubt can be entertained; and should the broken season we are passing through falsify the hopes of an abundant harvest, the situation of that part of the Empire must be such as has not been realized since the Famine of 1847. The 798 expectations raised by the Compensation for Disturbance Bill—the wisdom or unwisdom of which I do not stop to inquire into—have received a rude and stunning shock by the result of the division in 'another place;' and the two great classes of the country, landlords and tenants, stand in opposing ranks, as, in too many instances, needy creditors, and still needier debtors, while credit is unfortunately, and, as I hold, needlessly, suspended to a large extent for both by monetary panic and a general distrust, based on misapprehension of the conditions of the social and material problems involved. Each day brings us fresh evidence that the relations of the two great classes are becoming more strained; and I think that those who heard the statement of the Chief Secretary to-day, that Her Majesty's troops were being stationed in detachments throughout various parts of the West of Ireland, cannot but realize that a crisis has been arrived at which it would be an object worthy of the highest efforts of statesmanship to in any manner alleviate, and to, if possible, wholly avert. Looking back upon the statements at that time made both in the Press and in the House, he thought he was fully borne out in his expectations and forecast in this regard. But it was not for the purpose of taking to himself this small credit, but in order to appeal to the Prime Minister, as he had now taken up the matter upon so large a scale, to make it fully commensurate with the actual wants of society in Ireland. He was quite prepared to admit that the tenants of holdings under £30 valuation were, in the vast majority of instances, those who most required assistance towards liquidating their debts; but he could assure the Prime Minister, from a practical acquaintance with the subject, and also from the numerous inquiries he had made during the past two years—because, from the time he first made his proposal, the subject had never passed from his mind, and he took every opportunity of ascertaining the actual state of the tenantry in that country—that there were a very large number of tenants of above £30 valuation who would be, if possible, in a still worse position than those who had a low valuation. The measure would fall very short indeed of the complete success that would otherwise be secured if they allowed themselves to be limited to the hard-and-fast line of a £30 valuation. In many respects the tenants who were valued at above £30 and who appeared to have got into difficulties, were those who found it almost impossible to work themselves out of the position into which 799 they had fallen, and for the reason that their debts were immensely greater to them, in proportion, than were the small debts of the smaller tenants. In very many instances the position of these tenants was simply this, that, but for the toleration extended to them by the landlords where they owed two or three years' rent—and there were very many oases of this kind within his own cognizance—they would have been cast out on the road side. There was also this to be borne in mind, that the sums these tenants owed, being considerable, were a great drain on the landlords to whom they were due. In a large number of cases the landlords were so drained of resources that they were not able to employ labour in anything like the proportion that was required in the country in order to give the labouring poor a reasonable amount of occupation during the winter. This would be seen when he mentioned the single instance of a nobleman who had informed him that for years it had been customary with him to give employment to 400 people in the winter, but that now, owing to the fact that £10,000 was due to him as arrears of rent, he was unable to employ more than 10 or 12 men. He would, therefore, appeal to the Prime Minister—and he was glad he was backed up by the practical experience of the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw)—to allow the limit to be raised to at least a £50 valuation. As that hon. Member had said, there could be no practical objection to raising the limit to £100; but, at all events, he would urgently press on the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of raising the limit to £50. It would be safe, in his humble judgment, to have no limit at all, but to leave it open to the Commissioners to deal with each individual case on its merits, the Commissioners having full and ample power to reject or consent to any application made to them. This was really the vital point—the hinge upon which the whole thing turned—and he would press it as strongly as he could on the attention of the Prime Minister. In doing so, he was quite prepared to fall back on his own proposal of "loan" for the higher class of tenants, while that of gift might, as proposed by the Government, be restricted to the lower valuation.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
said, it would be an invidious thing if those tenants who 800 had had additions made to their rents were to go on paying those additions, whilst they saw that those who had held out a few months longer were getting reductions. There were a few mountainous districts, such as Connemara and parts of Kerry, where 1,000 or 2,000 tenants would, under the very generous scheme of the Prime Minister, have their cases met. He was not speaking for the whole of his own constituents, but of a few mountainous districts where he had witnessed evictions. But then there was the question of costs, which, though a small matter, would have to be considered so far as certain districts were concerned. The Commissioners, or someone else, should be empowered to settle the question of costs.

MR. GLADSTONE
I am not sure that I gathered very clearly the nature of the question—considered as a practical matter—addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down; but if he will put it in writing I shall be very happy to consider it. He refers to a case where a number of tenants have suffered under the provisions of the Act of last year, and wishes to know, I think, whether we are to expect them to pay the debts they have contracted. I apprehend that if they arrived at a settlement under the Act of last year, it was because they found it to their advantage so to settle, and without finding it advisable to give, before a tribunal, proof of their inability to pay their rents. I do not see how it will be possible to bring them in the category of those who must give proof of their inability to pay their rents before they can have the benefit of the Act. The hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) is under a misapprehension with regard to the letter he addressed to me on the 13th of April. I think it would, or might, have been gathered by those who heard the speech of the hon. Member, that in that letter he professed to make known to me the sentiments of the Members of Parliament who were in Kilmainham Prison.

§ MR. O'SHEA
I said in my letter to the right hon. Gentleman, that, though I had seen the hon. Member for Cork City, I had not mentioned to him that I was going to write to the Prime Minister.

MR. GLADSTONE
That letter I took to represent the sentiments of the hon. Member himself, and not those of 801 any other hon. Member. He stated that he did not represent the sentiments of any other hon. Member.

§ MR. O'SHEA
Certainly.

CAPTAIN AYLMER
said, the debate on the introduction of the Bill gave place to a series of personal explanations; and only one hon. Member on that (the Opposition) side had spoken on the Bill during the whole time. There was one thing the right hon. Gentleman had said which would give satisfaction to Members on that side of the House. He had said something about compensation, recognizing the fact that compensation should be given to embarrassed landlords. Another thing he had said which had caused great surprise on that side of the House—namely, that not only was £2,000,000 to be paid for the tenants, but that £2,000,000 was to be found by the tenants themselves—by the people who could not pay their arrears. He, for one, should offer the strongest opposition in his power to this measure, and would give the right hon. Gentleman Notice of his intention to put the following Resolution on the Paper:— That, while the House is willing to vote money for the relief of distress in Ireland, and the development of the resources of that country, it is of opinion that a grant of public money for the payment of arrears of rent will not effect either of those objects, and is opposed to every principle of political economy.

§ Motion agreed to.

§ Bill to make provision respecting certain Arrears of Rent in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. Secretary CHILDERS, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.

§ Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 163.]