HC Deb 29 November 1888 vol 331 cc558-83

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

, on rising to move that the Bill be read a third time that day three months, said that he was totally opposed to the principle of the Bill; he thought it one of the worst measures ever brought before the House. Large tracts of land were originally given in consideration of certain services. These services were replaced by a tax which Parliament, when but a Trades Union of Landlords, had abolished. It was now proposed by this Bill to constitute a new class of freeholders, who also would render neither service nor tax. The discussions upon the Bill had disclosed the false pretences upon which the original Act was obtained, and these pretences could no longer be advanced. It was urged that the money was to be applied in the disturbed districts; but as a matter of fact it had been spent principally in the quiet districts. Under the Bill they would have one man purchasing more than one farm, and another system of landlordism would be developed and, as was the case in France, the new landlords would be very much worse than those they had replaced. The Bill attempted, by aside wind, to undo the legislation of 1881, and would create a new system of land tenure in Ireland. In establishing a new set of owners, equity demanded that the value of Irish land should not be determined by the exercise of duress. Before anything was done, the Irish landlords should be placed on the same footing as Scotch and English landlords, who did not possess the exemptions and privileges of the Irish owners. The value of Irish land should be determined by its burdens. Just now the value was fictitious; it had been created by legislation, and was not the natural value. But even if all the burdens that ought to be borne by the Irish landlords were borne by them, he should still object to the Bill before the House, because he was as much opposed to a peasant owner of five acres as he was to a Peer owner of 500 acres. He contended that it would be wrong and unjust to lead the poor Irish peasant into the trap of buying the thing called economic rent, because it would be inevitably taken from him by taxation. In conclusion, he opposed that measure because the system established under it was neither a just nor an enduring one, and he would be no party to misleading the Irish peasant into spending his money to purchase a thing which would be inevitably taken from him. He begged to move that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Dr. Clark.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now ' stand part of the Question."

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. COMMINS (Roscommon, S.)

said, he opposed the third reading for two reasons. The first was that the Bill would do nothing whatever to remedy the evils complained of in Ireland, and the second was that it would produce an evil on its own account by tending to prevent the accumulation of capital, and to perpetuate, in an impersonal way, rack-renting, arrears, and evictions. The effect of the measure would be to convert the tenant into an in cumbered proprietor, who would not be relieved in the smallest degree from the present pressure of rent and arrears. The poor rate, the improvement rate, the county cess, and the other imposts now wholly or in part borne by the landlord, which would now fall on the purchasing tenant, would make the instalments about 17½ per cent over the old rent. It would be most useful information if the Government would furnish particulars of the burdens on the land which the purchasers would have to discharge. The purchasing tenants would be more rack-rented than before, and evictions would follow to such an extent that the occupiers would find the State more merciless than their former landlords.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, he held that the security was worthless; but, apart from that, on principle, the Bill was not entitled to their approval. The Party opposite alleged that they had a mandate to uphold the Union; but he had never heard it alleged that they had a mandate to carry out a scheme of purchase at the cost of the British taxpayer. The necessity of an independent valuation as the basis of purchase transactions had been insisted upon by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), who ought to have been present to reiterate the views he urged in opposition to the Land Bill of the Leader of the Opposition. It had been admitted in the case of Lord Dillon's estate that the rents of the holdings could not be made out of the land, and yet these rents might be made the bases of purchase transactions. Such bargains could not satisfy the rack-rented tenants, and, therefore, could not lead to the pacification of the country. But the tenants could not be free agents while the country was under coercion and eviction for arrears was used as the engine of compulsory purchase. Instead of allowing the landlords to walk off with the whole of the money at once, they should be content to take the instalments as they were received by the Government, upon whom would rest the cost of collection. This was the most socialistic measure that had ever been attempted to be passed. It was in direct opposition to the principle of land nationalization, and would reproduce all the evils of the present system of landlordism, and for these reasons he should vote against it.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cookermouth)

said, he did not quite agree with the statement that had been made that this Bill was being passed almost without discussion, though it was quite true that the discussion had been all on one side. They had spent nine days over the Bill, and he thought those days had been well spent, for they had cleared the air and explained to the country the real nature of this land purchase policy. It was quite clear that there would never again be a Liberal land purchase policy. The debate on the second reading had been a most excellent one. The leader of the Irish Party made the speech of a statesman, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) made the speech of a first-rate debater, and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) made the speech of a first-rate political acrobat. The late Sir Stafford Northcote once quoted an old saying that the only way to govern the Irish was to go among them with a thick stick in one hand and a heavy purse in the other. This was a very accurate description of the present policy of the Government—a mixture of coercion and corruption. In other words—doses of coercion followed by drafts of money. The policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and his supporters, however, was neither to bully nor to bribe, but to let the Irish people govern themselves, and, therefore, they opposed this Bill for this, among other reasons, that it was rejected by the 85 Nationalist members of Ireland, and only supported by the 15 landlordist Members. This debate was certainly in one respect unprecedented—it was the first occasion on which Irish Members had ever been known to refuse to receive money for their country. But this he regarded as a grand tribute to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). Irish Members said they wanted justice, not alms. It was also a tribute to the democracy of this country, because it proved that the Irish people knew that the English democracy were willing to give them that justice that was once called the miracle worker. It was absurd to represent this Bill as intended for the benefit of the tenants. It was a "Landlords' Gratification Bill," to enable them, out of the pockets of the British taxpayer, to get more than the market price of their property. The Conservative Party had fallen a little in his (Sir Wilfrid Lawson's) esteem during the last 10 days. He had considered that if they were good at anything they were good at electioneering, but they had taken a step which would ruin them for ever with the constituencies inputting this policy before the country. It might be said that this was only a modification of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian's scheme which they supported, but that scheme was part of a great policy of pacification. Many things, however, had occurred since then. The opinion of the country on this matter had been made known, and the Liberal Party would not fall into the trap again. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington recently said we were living under a brutal system and in a brutish manner. That was quite true. The policy of the Government in Ireland was to treat the people like brutes. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) agreed with Mr. Michael Davitt that it was an extraordinary thing to say "we will settle the land question before we give them Home Rule." Those who believed in Home Rule ought in consistency to leave this question to be dealt with by an Irish Parliament. But though he said this, it must not be supposed that he did not pity the Irish landlords. He pitied everybody who was in a false position, and the landlords both in England and Ireland had been in a false position. Hitherto they had been a species of petty princes, legislators, and magistrates, and masters of the people. But the time had now gone by owing to two causes—the fall in prices and the rise in democracy. He would rather vote for a Bill unblushingly brought in to relieve landlords than for a measure sush as this, which violated every principle of political economy. He wanted to do justice to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington. There was no one in this country who talked such a mixture of sense and nonsense. The noble Lord said the other night, "Remember that we are going on with this sort of thing for three years more." That was a serious thing for everybody. It was a serious thing for the noble Lord; it was difficult for him for three years to go on running with the aristocratic hare and hunting with the democratic hounds. It was a serious thing for Ireland. Well might his hon. Friends from Ireland look with dismay to three years of coercion, of arbitrary arrests and imprisonments, of the breaking up of meetings, and the kidnapping of Members. But it was a serious thing for the Liberal Party also, because Lord Salisbury and the sympathizing statesmen who sat on the Bench below had made up their minds to stop all progress for the next three years. But the Liberal Party had counted the cost; they had put their hand to the plough, and they would not look back. The Liberal Party were at this moment more true to their principles than ever before, and they intended to go steadily on until the time of this tyranny was past and such annoying questions were over as they had just spent nine nights upon, questions with which that House was not competent to cope, but which would be left to the voice of the Irish people and the votes of an Irish Parliament.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)

said, he had listened with considerable attention to the speech of the hon. Baronet. He looked upon the hon. Baronet as an interesting specimen—a Radical and at the same time a landlord. He listened with great curiosity to hear whether the hon. Baronet would inform the House how he dealt with his tenants. He would like to know whether the hon. Baronet ever asked for his rent? [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: They pay it well.] He would like to know whether, if the hon. Baronet's tenants refused to pay, they were left in undisturbed occupancy of their holdings, whether the hon. Baronet dealt with them in that philanthropic manner in which Irish landlords were expected to deal with theirs, and whether if a tenant refused to pay the hon. Baronet said to him, "You are doing perfectly right. Do not pay." If he did that he should look upon the hon. Baronet as taking a logical stand. He found, however, that Radical landlords were just as fond of their rent as Irish landlords undoubtedly were. And now he ventured to entreat the indulgence of the House for a few moments, in order to vindicate his accuracy as a true prophet. The House would remember when, on a former occasion, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) cited an instance of a certain Mary Colleton, to prove how hard and unjust Irish landlords were on their tenants in pressing for arrears, he said that an able and assiduous friend had informed him about all the details. He ventured to warn the right hon. Gentleman against that able and assiduous friend.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

rose to Order. He said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian was not now in his place, and he asked whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite was in Order in referring to a particular debate which had taken place a short time ago.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to a debate on the first reading of this same Bill.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

said, he was perfectly aware that this was a very disagreeable question to hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian referred to this case to prove that Irish landlords made use of arrears to grind down their tenants and prevent them from availing themselves of the concessions made by that House. He ventured to say at the time that the right hon. Gentleman ought to take great care how he lent an ear to those tales of able and assiduous friends. There was an air of unreality—he might say of romance—about it. The right hon. Gentleman said at the time he knew nothing about the case, but he had since learnt all the details, and hon. Gentlemen opposite who knew so much about Ireland would probably contradict him if he were wrong. The right hon. Gentleman first of all said that it was the case of Mary Colleton. The fact was it was the case of a man not a woman; and it was hard even for the right hon. Gentleman to turn an Irishman into an Irishwoman. Instead of Mary it happened to be Michael. That was mistake number one. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that on the estate in question there were 2,000 tenants. It happened that there were 1,200, a difference of 800. That was in the right hon. Gentleman's eyes a "trifling difference." Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there were only 200 tenants with fair rents fixed on the Shirley estate—every one knew that was the estate spoken of. There wore on that estate 450 judicial rents fixed and 600 applications to have them fixed. Then, again, there was considerable hiatus in the right hon. Gentleman's story. The right hon Gentleman did not mention that in 12 cases Mr. Shirley offered to accept decrees for part of the arrears in order to enable his tenants to go in under the Act. That was a generous offer and ought not to have been forgotten. The right hon. Gentleman was only correct in two statements—namely, that the original rent in the case referred to was £3 17s., and that the amount decided upon for a fair rent was £1 18s. On the appeal, however, two valuers were sent down and they decided that the fair rent was £2 7s. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the tenants sent a deputation to the agent and offered £8 8s. 6d., "the uttermost farthing." There again the able and assiduous friend deceived the candid mind of the right hon. Gentleman. The uttermost farthing was £12 1s. Mr. Shirley, the landlord, offered to reinstate this Michael Colleton in the farm if he would pay £8 8s. 6d., which had been offered instead of £12 1s., at a rent which the two valuers said was a fair rent, £2 7s.

MR. DILLON

What is your authority?

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

Mr. Shirley himself. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed, but he was perfectly certain the majority of the House and the country would accept that statement and the figures could be verified. Hon. Gentlemen could find out whether the figures were correct or not, and on a future occasion if the figures were incorrect they could show it to the House, He maintained that they were correct. So much for the dealings with "this unfortunate tenant" who paid £2 7s. rent for three acres and a house. Every effort was made by hon. Members opposite and right hon. Gentlemen their friends, who ought to know better, to vilify and hold up to public execration the class to which he belonged. Very few cases, however, had been specified, not more than one or two, but vague generalities had been employed and accusations hurled against a class without specific details by which inaccuracy or fraud might be detected. The landlords in Ireland might congratulate themselves on the way in which they had come out of the inquisition in spite of the pertinacity and sagacity of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He thought the importance of that debate, so far as the line taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite was concerned, would be that it showed the character of the controversy in which the House was engaged. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite had taken an entirely new line in that debate. He did not say it was an unjustifiable line. Far from it. They had taken, for the first time in their lives, the side of the British taxpayer. All their oratory had been devoted to showing that the British taxpayer in laying out that £5,000,000 in Ireland was laying it out on bad security. What a sudden change had taken place in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite! In 1886 it was proposed to lay out £150,000,000, yet no hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite, if he remembered rightly, rose in his place and said, "This is a bad security, and the British taxpayer will suffer." But now £5,000,000 were to be paid in Ireland to establish the class which they wanted so much in that country—the independent farmer class, which could look with contempt at the efforts of an organization which now existed in Ireland to restrain and interfere with their perfectly legal action. Hon. Gentlemen had not confined themselves to defending the British taxpayer. He should say, if they had done that alone, they had turned over a new leaf; but the hon. Member for East Mayo had said in the course of those debates that, "as an honest man he felt it to be his duty to state that, so long as the coercion policy of the Government was maintained in Ireland he intended to use that as a lever." What did that mean? It could only mean one thing, and that was that the Irish tenants who purchased their farms under that Act, if the coercion policy of the Government was maintained, ought to repudiate their just debts.

MR. DILLON

said, he never said anything of the sort, or anything that could bear that interpretation. What he had said was that, as an honest man, he felt bound to warn the British taxpayer that there was a great risk that in the future there might arise a party in Ireland who might advocate repudiation.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

said, the hon. Member had made use of the word "lever." He was content to abide by the report of the debate. The hon. Member was referring to another part of his speech, and he quite remembered the passage to which the hon. Member was referring. [Cries of "Quote!"] He had quoted.

MR. DILLON

said, that neither in that House, nor in any other place, did he state that he intended to advise the Irish tenants to repudiate. He had stated that where the bargain was not a free one the tenant was not morally bound by the terms. He would simply say that he did contradict as to the use of the words attributed to him.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

said, that, of course, he accepted the explanation of the hon. Gentleman, but he invited hon. Members to read the speech, and he most solemnly declared that the hon. Member had made use of the word "lever"—that he intended to use it as a "lever" so long as the coercive policy of the Government was continued, and he asked hon. Members to put their own interpretation upon it. For his part, he could only put one interpretation upon it, which he believed to be the natural interpretation. He left it to the judgment of the country. The hon. Member for East Mayo, in order to prove how successful his policy had been, had said in exultation, "Five thousand farms in Ireland are vacant to-day." "What did that mean? What a triumph! Five thousand farms; a desert growing weeds! That was the condition the Unionist Party in Ireland had always maintained Ireland would be in if the hon. Member and his friends were placed in supreme authority there. That boast justified every statement they had ever made—that they should ever consent to be ruled by men like him. Hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared to him to feel very sore at the mention of one estate upon which vacant farms had been taken. Ridicule and contempt had been thrown upon the tenants who had been placed in possession on the Coolgreaney estates. According to hon. Gentlemen opposite, those were bogus tenants. According to the interpretation of hon. Gentlemen opposite, a bogus tenant was a tenant who refused to abide by the law and authority of the National League. In that sense these were bogus tenants. In order that the House might understand the conduct of the tenantry who once occupied those 5,000 vacant farms, and especially those on that estate, he hoped he might be allowed to give one instance. He would quote the case of John Doyle, and hon. Members opposite could correct him if he was inaccurate. He was a tenant on the Coolgreaney estate, and held 46 acres of land. In the year 1882, he paid £400 for the tenant-right of that farm. With great reluctance he had embarked in the Plan of Campaign. At first he refused, but ultimately he listened to what was called "advice," and joined the Plan of Campaign. Between the amount of rent which the Plan of Campaign permitted him to offer, and the amount which Mr. Brooke, the landlord, consented to accept there was only a sum of £5 17s. The landlord refused to accept the sum fixed by the Plan of Campaign, and he was perfectly right. The Irish landlords absolutely refused to allow an organization like the National League or the Plan of Campaign to fix their rents, and he could only say, speaking for himself, that if the Plan of Campaign was put in operation upon his property, and a tenant offered him £1 or 1s. less because it was the rent fixed by the Plan of Campaign, he would break stones on the road before he would accept it. John Doyle happened to have cattle worth a considerable sum on his farm. Those, in order to save seizure, were driven off his farm on to one adjoining. There happened to be a distraint for rent upon that farm, and Doyle's cattle were seized and sold under the distress. He therefore lost his cattle and his £400, simply for a difference of £5 17s., but he dared not offer 1s. more than the Plan of Campaign allowed. How he must have blessed the Plan of Campaign! Since then he had been living in a Campaign hut; but recently all the huts on that estate had been pulled down in order to prevent seizure for rent of the land on which they had been erected and the wood hid away. The wood, however, had been found and seized, and was now going back to repair the farms on which those gentlemen lived. He might give other cases, but he refrained. It was time that the House and the country should fully realize the nature of the transactions which at present were going on in Ireland under the Plan of Campaign and between landlord and tenant. Who would contend that a man like John Doyle was a lucky or a fortunate man because he had joined the great army of 5,000 dispossessed tenants instead of paying his £5 17s. and remaining where he was? He thought it very important that the House should realize what the action of the hon. Gentlemen opposite had been. There was something more lying in that statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo about those 5,000 evicted farms. He (Colonel Saunderson) was perfectly well aware, and hon. Members from Ireland would not deny that they had joined issue in fighting this Bill, because they were determined to see whether an evicted farm could or could not be taken. They said it could not. How did they prevent it? According to the right hon Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian they gave "advice." The advice they gave was advice which, he ventured to say, no English, Welsh, or Scotchman would permit to be given on this side of the St. George's Channel. According to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) they carried it on by esprit de corps. He did not know how they translated that here; but in Ireland it meant squeezing a man's soul out of his body. Were the House and the country deliberately going to accept that policy proposed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, by allowing an organization to exist in Ireland which should be able to give those men bad advice, and forge round the neck of the Irish tenants a yoke which no one with any manhood in him would consent to bear? He (Colonel Saunderson) contended that this Bill had been opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite for two reasons—first, because they knew perfectly well that every tenant who bought his farm under that Act would separate for ever from the organization to which they belonged; and, secondly, because they wished to take up before the people of this country a strictly Constitutional attitude. But he ventured to think that the English people were not so absolutely gullible as to swallow such a monstrous proposal as that. When the English people compared the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and found that in Ireland they used all their efforts to prevent the tenants from buying their farms and so escaping from their yoke, while over here they simply mentioned that their object was to protect the pockets of the British taxpayer, the people of this country would find that there was no honesty or reality in that policy, and would reject the proposals of those hon. Members with contempt. He thought he had proved that in the case of Mary Cregan he was a true prophet. The hon. Member for East Mayo had also ventured on a prophecy. He said, "When these landlords get hold of the money they will go out of the country and leave it to us." Do not let the hon. Member believe that. He had not got rid of them yet. He remembered a prophecy that the hon. Member made in a speech in Ireland two years ago. He said, "In 18 months we shall have a Home Rule Government in Ireland." Far from that; in 18 months there was no Home Rule, and the hon. Member was himself in gaol. The prophecy of the hon. Member for East Mayo was just as incorrect as his prophecy would prove to be correct when he said that the Irish landlords intended to live in their own land, and to confront the hon. Member and his policy, and trust in the justice of their cause and the common sense of their countrymen until they saw Ireland a happy, peaceful, and prosperous country.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said, that the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) in the remarkable contribution to the debate which he had just made had stated that the Irish Members, who pretended an anxiety on behalf of the English taxpayers, were turning over a new leaf. It was true that the Irish Members, as was remarked by an hon. Baronet who represented a Northern constituency (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) could boast that for the first time in the history of Parlinment Irishmen had been found to repudiate a wasteful expenditure on Ireland. On behalf of the Irish tenantry they were prepared to repudiate this wasteful outlay, and to conduct the affairs of their country without diving into the pockets of the English taxpayers. The worst enemies of the landlords of Ireland would never bring such a charge against them, for during a long career they had consistently, and with an unbroken tradition, pursued the policy of diving into the pockets of the English taxpayers. The much-abused tenants, who had been referred to by the Prime Minister under the simile of three men sitting upon two, had paid with great punctuality the money which had been advanced to them, while the landlords had been in the habit of stopping payment when they had disharged about a quarter of their obligations. He had never withdrawn in that House language he had used outside, and he repudiated the statement that he advized the tenants to use this money as a "lever" against the Government. He expressly stated in the speech referred to, as was reported in The Times, that he had never advised the tenants to reject or repudiate their obligations, and that he had felt bound to tell the tenants that they must discharge their debts under this Act. In the same speech he had warned the country that they were lending money on a rotten security, and that the time might come when a National Party would spring into existence with a programme of repudiation.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

said, he repeated that the hon. Member said what he had stated. [Cries of Oh, oh!"] Look at the Report. [Cries of "Quote."] He challenged the hon. Member to contradict it.

MR. DILLON

said, the hon. and gallant Member wanted contradiction, and he should have it. He never stated in that House, nor in any other place, that he intended to recommend the Irish tenants to repudiate the contracts. He had stated that, as the contract was not a free one, they were not morally bound to adhere to it. [Ironical laughter.] He had failed to understand the hilarity of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He simply said that he contradicted the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he had ever said anything that bore the interpretation he puts on it.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

said, he was sure the word "lever" would be found in the report, and he would leave it to the country to put a meaning on that word.

MR. DILLON

said, that as the hon. and gallant Member had refused to quote from the speech he would do so, from The Times report. What he said was— The hour might possibly arrive when a National Party might spring into existence, with a programme of repudiation of the liabilities, on the ground that they were forced on the people.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

asked, would the hon. Gentleman read the passage in which the word "lever" occurred?

MR. DILLON

That was the only passage referred to. He not only did not use the expression attributed to him, but stated that he never recommended the policy of repudiation, and never intended to do so. The hon. and gallant Member had challenged the hon. Baronet, and asked whether English landlords were not fond of their rents. But no standing army was required for English landlords to recover their rents; and it was a broad principle of comparison between English and Irish landlords to take the amount of armed force necessary in either case to exact the payment of rent. Irish Members were charged with being the root and cause of opposition to the payment of rent in Ireland. But long before the National League the conduct of the Irish landlords had necessitated the employment of 14,000 bayonets in Ireland to enforce proceedings between tenants and landlords. He maintained that no class had a moral right to exist in any country where standing armies, independent of the Representatives of the people, were required to maintain their privileges. There was this great distinction between English and Irish landlords, that the former had constantly been controlled in their action towards their tenants by the public opinion of the people among whom they lived, whereas the Irish landlords had the unlimited command of armed men, whose support was provided for without the imposition of any local taxes. The result was that the ordinary temptations of human nature were too strong for these men. The hon. and gallant Member had quoted the case of John Doyle, on the Brooke estate, in County Wexford, and referred to the enormous losses to which that man had been subjected in consequence of the policy recommended by the Irish Members. It was absurd to judge of these great movements by individual cases. But he would ask what did the hon. and gallant Member and others of his party do when thousands of those like John Doyle were thrown out on the roadside? The hon. and gallant Member knew that by the action of men like John Doyle thousands of Irish tenants had been saved from starvation. If this had been the result of their action, all honour to men like John Doyle.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

said, that he had never insinuated that the action of John Doyle deserved reprobation; he said that the shame was on those who incited him.

MR. DILLON

said, he was glad to have the hon. and gallant Member's admission that the man who refused to pay his rent was not deserving of blame. For his part he was sorry the advice had not been given 25 or 30 or 40 years ago. He was not surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends should be intensely bitter against the Plan of Campaign. It was a proof that they had at last met their match, and, he hoped, their master. He could assure the hon. and gallant gentleman that it would take something more than his eloquence to make him ashamed of the action he had taken in the matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman assumed his most military aspect when he said that the Irish landlords "would never allow these organizations to dictate to them what rents they were to receive; they would rather break stones on the roadside than allow it." Was the hon. and gallant Member's memory so short that he had forgotten the long list of landlords who had allowed him to dictate the terms of rent, and the long list of men who had gratefully accepted his cheque for rent? Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be surprised to hear that his agent sat in the rent offices of Lord Westmeath, Lord Dillon, Lord De Freyne, and other great landlords, beside the landlords' agents, who gratefully accepted the Plan of Campaign receipts for the rents which he himself handed over? Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be surprised to learn that he had received in the past, from the agents of these great landlords, Plan of Campaign receipts by the bundle, which had been cashed by his own cheque? He did not know that Lord Westmeath or Lord Dillon were yet breaking stones. On the contrary, they had more money in their pockets than they would have had under other circumstances. The hon. and gallant Gentleman lived in a part of the country where the Plan of Campaign was not in force; but there the landlords had no need to give reductions. In the districts where the Plan of Campaign had been successful, the policy pursued by Lord Dillon, and many other great landlords, was a very much more prudent policy than that of breaking stones on the roadside. He could name a very long list of men the settling of whose rents he had had more to do with than probably had the agents; and he knew a great many cases in which the agents were dismissed by landlords, who admitted afterwards that they had been blinded by these men.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

Will the hon. Member give names?

MR. DILLON

would certainly do so. Lord De Freyne dismissed his agent; and Mr. Murphy dismissed Mr. "Whipper" Lynch at his instance. The Marquess of Conyngham dismissed his agent on one estate because he found that the man had treated his tenants harshly. The hon. and gallant Gentleman would find, if he extended his investigations in Ireland, that he had adopted a policy which he could not possibly maintain, or, if he did, he would not get his brother landlords to follow him. The gallant Colonel Dopping had also been dismissed by the landlord, who had found that he had made Gweedore too hot for him. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had asked him how he proposed to keep farms where evictions had taken place vacant. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better go over to Ireland and inquire. He had, from the beginning of the agitation, endeavoured to impress upon the minds of the people of Ireland that one of the greatest curses was the competition for farms from which the old owners had been unjustly evicted, and that it was no use agitating and talking if they could not get up a sufficiently strong combination to induce people to abstain from taking farms when, in the judgment of the neighbourhood, the tenants had been unjustly evicted from them. He had told the people that they would never get reasonable reductions until they did this. The consequence had been, that in the last eight years, during which this great emancipating movement had been going on, the most powerful weapon which they had had in their hands had been this—that for the first time in the history of Ireland the landlords found an increasing difficulty in letting farms from which they had unjustly evicted their tenants. So deeply were the people convinced of the justice of this policy that it would be impossible for an Executive Government in Ireland to get these farms taken. This movement was a justifiable, reasonable, and fair movement; and in most of the districts of Ireland, where his influence was supposed to be at the highest, these farms had been kept vacant without violence or threats of any kind. It was absolutely impossible to get over that fact; and the people of Ireland were convinced more than ever that in order to work the Land Purchase Act with any hope of justice, the chief and only weapon they could look to was the weapon of abstaining from taking farms from which men had been unjustly evicted. The people of Ireland would undoubtedly use that weapon, and they could do so in perfect justice. He might state that in one case where the landlord put in a caretaker and proposed to sell the farm to him for 20 years' purchase, moral pressure was used to keep the farm vacant. It remained vacant for two years, and last week the evicted tenant was restored to his home on equitable terms, and the Emergency man had been got rid of, while the landlord had suffered. All this had been done without any violence whatever. He quoted that to show that it was a monstrous injustice and outrage for anyone, either in that House or out of it, to say that because he had always advocated, and always would continue to advocate, combination, among the tenantry in Ireland in order to keep empty farms from which tenants had been unjustly evicted, he therefore advocated a policy of outrage and intimidation. That was not true, and he should continue to advocate the combination which, he believed, the Irish people would not abandon.

SIR EDWARD HAMLEY (Birkenhead)

said, that if in a panic-striken land some persons were endeavouring to afford relief while others sought to frustrate these efforts, he thought they would not be using language too strong if they characterized such conduct as malignant and inhuman, nor would their verdict be the more indulgent because they were aware that these obstructors were acting for their own purposes, and if they were to set up the plea that they were doing this in the interests of the sufferers that would only make the case more shocking. He supposed no rational man would dispute that the Government neither had, nor could have, any object except the good of the Irish people. That was the object which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and his followers had set themselves to frustrate. There were men who did not know when they were beaten; and there might also be men who did not know when they had blundered. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian might be one of them; but one should think that some faint suspicion must be creeping even into his confident mind when he looked back on the recent debate, and especially when he reviewed the speeches of his immediate followers. To say that they were destitute of reality was to say nothing. They were destitute even of plausibility. They had been mere floods of phrases without a shadow of fact or of argument. But the failure of the followers was as nothing compared with the failure of their Leader. The right hon. Gentleman had long been renowned for ability to construct imposing edifices out of the slightest materials, to people them with men of straw, and to persuade his confiding followers that they were real castles inhabited by real people. But on the present occasion his wonted skill had deserted him. They had seen him engaged, indeed, in construction; but there had been no illusion; nobody had been deceived; they had seen throughout the process the straw, the tinsel, the sawdust, and the rags. They might ask what motive could have induced those prominent politicians to enter on such a course. The answer was plain enough—they were acting not from conviction, but from compulsion—the compulsion of the Irish alliance. They got a step further when they asked how it was that hon. Members for Ireland were opposed to a measure which was to benefit the Irish people; and there again they might be at no loss for a solution. If they had been, hon. Members opposite would themselves have furnished it. Those hon. Gentlemen could not endure that Ireland should receive even the smallest measure that would render it contented from a British Government. They would look on a contented Ireland with the feelings of Milton's evil hero, when, from his lurking place, he looked into Paradise. The scene he there beheld of repose, peace, and content—so different from what he wished to see—filled his heart with rage and despair. They knew what sort of an Ireland hon. Members opposite would wish to see—a desert of unlet farms, peopled by discontented and lawless inhabitants. They asked themselves what would be the effect of a contented Ireland on their great conspiracy, the Plan of Campaign, and they knew it would be destructive to it. Accordingly they opposed that measure. The Plan of Campaign had been condemned by legal authority as an unlawful conspiracy, but it had not been adequately denounced in that House. It was a system of roguery and robbery; it could only have been devised by rogues, advocated by rogues, put in practice by rogues, and excused by rogues. It had been enforced by a system of oppression the most cruel and abominable that ever existed in a civilized State. The announcement had been made from public platforms that those who did not join in this conspiracy would have their lives made unhappy. Did hon. Gentlemen consider what it was to have their lives made unhappy for not joining in a conspiracy? It was a sentiment so atrocious that the man who uttered it ought to be regarded as the enemy of the human race, like a pirate, and in the interests of society itself held up to public execration. It was for the privilege of nourishing such a system as this in its bosom that Ireland was to be deprived of its peace and prosperity. He could imagine no better disicipline for a Home Ruler, who was at once sagacious and honest, than to take his seat in the Gallery and listen to what the Representatives of his country had to say in the discussions on her fortunes. He thought that he would, perhaps, come to the conclusion that he would never be willing to intrust her destinies to such hands. The House had heard an hon. Member that evening contemplating a possibility of hon. Members opposite ever ruling their country. What proof, he would ask, had they over given that they possessed the power, he did not say to control the country, but even to foresee what the condition of Ireland would be if separate and alone? To start Ireland under such conditions on a new career would tax the resources of the most experienced statesmen. Had the calm and luminous intelligence of the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) ever shed any light on the subject? [Cries of "Chair!" and "Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that the Bill before us is one for lending an additional sum of money for the purchase of land in Ireland.

SIR EDWARD HAMLEY

said, he wished to call attention to the general course of the debate, for this reason—that the cause of the delay of Public Business was a matter which the people of the country were entitled to take note of. It was only by bringing it strongly to public attention that they could hope the public would ever take that line on the subject which it was hoped they would take, and see that the mandate given to their Representatives was carried out, charging them that if Parliament did not already possess the power to control its own proceedings it might furnish itself with those powers, and might fulfil the purpose of its existence, which was to manage the affairs of the Kingdom and the Empire.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

said, he assured the hon. and gallant Member that he had never before been so convinced of the truth of the saying that the tongue was mightier than the sword. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had succeeded in making a speech most admirably adapted—in spite of the Speaker's call to Order—to any debate on Irish subjects that he had ever listened to during the last seven years. Although he had, unfortunately, been called to Order sometimes by the Chair, he had never felt so poignantly a call to Order as that which came upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He (Mr. T. M. Healy) thought that the Government, by permitting the incursion of the dialectic moss trooper into debate, could have been afforded but little satisfaction; because he had understood—before the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) and the last speaker intervened in the debate to give the House a new edition of the Battle of Dorking—that the Government were extremely anxious to have the Bill considered in a calm and peaceful manner. He had hoped that the debate would have finished a long time ago, but as the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had been put up to make this extraordinary intrusion, and as the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead would never have been permitted by the Whip to intervene in the debate if they had not thought that there was some extraordinary exigency for him to speak, knowing what he did of the discipline of the Party opposite, he thought they could not have done so except at the direct suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. He assured the House that the speeches of those hon. and gallant Gentlemen were altogether beyond the range of his poor capacity. The hon. and gallant Gentleman would believe that it was from no discourtesy to him, but simply from a lack of nimbleness on his part, that he was unable at this short notice to grasp the exact point of his address. He had now heard for the first time that the ragged Irish tenant was the most trustful and the most faithful payer of his instalments that could be found in any part of the Kingdom. It seemed that by the magic of property, which turned sand into gold, the Moonlighter of Kerry would be in future the eldest son of the Treasury Bench, and especially of the First Lord himself. He invited the economists of the House to investigate the history of the £1,250,000 which was formerly advanced to Irish landlords. Here was the account given by the Treasury draftsman— Lent under 4 George IV. Amount advanced, £279,451; amount repaid £51,000. Lent under 3 & 4 William IV. Amount advanced, £900,000; amount repaid, nil. Such was the history of this said £1,250,000. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh and the military Gentleman charged the Irish Members with being rogues themselves, and with supporting every form of villainy which it was possible to invent, and the gallant General added that they had not yet been adequately denounced. Would the hon. and gallant General get up a crusade against the men who pocketed that £1,250,000? Those who advocated the cause of the poor ragged tenants were denounced as rogues by men who were drawing hundreds of pounds a-year from the British taxpayer. For his own part, he was proud of his advocacy of the cause of the ragged tenants.

[While the hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking, a Member on one of the back Benches below the Gangway called out, "Compton is in!"]

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would now think he was sufficiently answered. The hon. and gallant Gentleman wished there had been some Home Rulers in the Strangers' Gallery to listen to the speeches delivered on that side of the House; but he would now find that there were very good orators and very good listeners in the borough of Holborn. As he could no longer hope to attract the attention of the House, he would only ask some Member of the Government to tell them whether it was intended to prolong the term of the two Commissioners until the whole of the £5,000,000 was expended?

[It was here announced that Mr. Bruce had been returned.]

SIR EDWARD HAMLEY

I hope the hon. and learned Member will think he is sufficiently answered.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, they had been waiting for 100 years, and they were not tired yet. He asked for information with regard to the future position of the Commissioners.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he thought he should, perhaps, best consult the convenience of the House if he abstained from dealing with many of the topics which had been raised in the somewhat discursive debate, and confined himself to endeavouring to meet the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. He agreed that the tenure of Office of the Land Commissioners and the Land Purchase Commissioners, dependent as it was merely on the provisions of a Continuance Bill, was not satisfactory, and he proposed next Session to bring in a Bill to place them on a more satisfactory footing. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would be content with that general declaration on the subject.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 202; Noes 141: Majority 61.

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, J. T. Fletcher, Sir H.
Ainslie, W. G. Folkestone, right hon. Viscount
Aird, J. Forwood, A. B.
Allsopp, hon. G. Fowler, Sir R. N.
Amherst, W. A. T. Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.
Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L. Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.
Anstruther, H. T. Gedge, S.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E. Giles, A.
Baden-Powell, Sir G. S. Gilliat, J. S.
Balfour, rt. hon. A. J. Godson, A. F.
Baring, Viscount Goldsmid, Sir J.
Baring, T. C. Goldsworthy, Major General W. T.
Barry, A. H. S. Gorst, Sir J. E.
Bartley, G. C. T. Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.
Barttelot, Sir W. B. Granby, Marquess of
Bates, Sir E. Gray, C. W.
Baumann, A. A. Grimston, Viscount
Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks- Grotrian, F. B.
Hall, A. W.
Beadel, W. J. Hall, C.
Biddulph, M. Halsey, T. F.
Bigwood, J. Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.
Bonsor, H. C. O. Hamilton, Lord E.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F. Hamilton, Col. C. E.
Brookfield, A. M. Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.
Burghley, Lord Hankey, F. A.
Campbell, J. A. Hastings, G. W.
Carmarthen, Marq. of Heath, A. R.
Chamberlain, R. Herbert, hon. S.
Charrington, S. Hermon-Hodge, R. T.
Clarke, Sir E. G. Hervey, Lord F.
Coghill, D. H. Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.
Colomb, Sir J. C. R. Hoare, E. B.
Compton, F. Hoare, S.
Cooke, C. W. R. Hobhouse, H.
Corbett, A. C. Holloway, G.
Corbett, J. Houldsworth, Sir W. H.
Corry, Sir J. P. Howorth, H. H.
Cranborne, Viscount Hunt, F. S.
Cross, H. S. Hunter, Sir W. G.
Cross, W. H. Isaacs, L. H.
Curzon, Viscount Isaacson, F. W.
Darling, C. J. Jackson, W. L.
Darling, M. T. S. James, rt. hon. Sir H.
Davenport, H. T. Jarvis, A. W.
De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P. Johnston, W.
De Worms, Baron H. Kelly, J. R.
Dimsdale, Baron R. Kennaway, Sir J. H.
Dixon-Hartland, F. D. Kenrick, W.
Dorington, Sir J. E. Kerans, F. H.
Duncombe, A. King, H. S.
Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H. Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.
Ebrington, Viscount Knowles, L.
Egerton, hon. A. de T. Lafone, A.
Elliot, hon. A. R. D. Lambert, C.
Ellis, Sir J. W. Laurie, Colonel R. P.
Elton, C. I. Lawrence, W. F.
Ewart, Sir W. Lea, T.
Eyre, Colonel H. Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.
Fergusson, right hon. Sir J. Legh, T. W.
Field, Admiral E. Leighton, S.
Fielden, T. Lewisham, right hon. Viscount
Finlay, R. B.
Fisher, W. H. Llewellyn, E. H.
Fitzgerald, R. U. P.
Fitz-Wygram, General Sir F. W.
Lowther, hon. W. Ross, A. H.
Lowther, J. W. Round, J.
Lubbock, Sir J. Boyden, T. B.
Maclean, F. W. Russell, Sir G.
Maclure, J. W. Russell, T. W.
Madden, D. H. Salt, T.
Makins, Colonel W. T. Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M.
Malcolm, Col. J. W. Saunderson, Col. E. J.
Maple, J. B. Selwyn, Capt. C. W.
Matthews, rt. hon. H. Shaw-Stewart, M. H.
Mattinson, M. W. Sidebotham, J. W.
Maxwell, Sir H. E. Sidebottom, W.
Mayne, Admiral R. C. Sinclair, W. P.
Milvain, T. Smith, right hon. W H.
More, R. J. Spencer, J. E.
Morrison, W. Stanhope, rt. hon. E.
Moss, R. Talbot, J. G.
Mount, W. G. Tapling, T. K.
Mowbray, R. G. C. Temple, Sir R.
Mulholland, H. L. Theobald, J.
Muncaster, Lord Thorburn, W.
Muutz, P. A. Tollemache, H. J.
Murdoch, C. T. Tomlinson, W. E. M.
Noble, W. Townsend, F.
Norris, E. S. Vincent, C. E. H.
Northcote, hon. Sir H. S. Waring, Colonel T.
O'Neill, hon. E. T. Webster, Sir R. E.
Parker, hon. F. Webster, R. G.
Peily, Sir L. Whitley, E.
Plunket, rt. hon. D. R. Whitmore, C. A.
Powell, F. S. Wodehouse, E. E.
Raikes, rt. hon. H. O. Wolmer, Viscount
Rankin, J. Wood, N.
Ridley, Sir M. W. Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Ritchie, rt. hn. C. T. Young, C. E. B.
Robertson, Sir W. T. TELLERS. Douglas, A. Akers-Walrond, Col. W. H.
Robertson, J. P. B.
Robinson, B.
Rollit, Sir A. K.
NOES.
Abraham, W. (Glam.) Conway, M.
Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.) Conybeare, C. A. V.
Acland, A. H. D. Corbet, W. J.
Allison, E. A. Cossham, H.
Anderson, C. H. Crawford, D.
Asquith, H. H. Cremor, W. R.
Austin, J. Crilly, D.
Barbour, W. B. Deasy, J.
Barran, J. Dillon, J.
Blane, A. Ellis, J. E.
Bolton, J. C. Ellis, T. E.
Bolton, T. D. Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.
Broadhurst, H. Esslemont, P.
Brunner, J. T. Evans, F. H.
Burt, T. Evershed, S.
Byrne, G. M. Farquharson, Dr. R.
Cameron, J. M. Fenwick, C.
Campbell, Sir G. Ferguson, R. C. Munro-
Campbell, H. Finucane, J.
Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H. Firth, J. F. B.
Carew, J. L. Fitzgerald, J. G.
Causton, R. K. Flower, C.
Childers, right hon. H. C. E. Flynn, J. C.
Clancy, J. J. Foljambe, C. G. S.
Cobb, H. P. Forster, Sir C.
Coleridge, hon. B. Foster, Sir W. B.
Colman, J. J. Fowler, rt. hon. H. H.
Commins, A. Fuller, G. P.
Gardner, H.
Gill, T. P.
Gourley, E. T.
Harris, M. Pinkerton, J.
Hayden, L. P. Plowden, Sir W. C.
Hayne, G. Seale- Power, P. J.
Healy, T. M. Power, R.
Hunter, W. A. Provand, A. D.
Illingworth, A. Randell, D.
Jacoby, J. A. Reed, Sir E. J.
James, hon. W. H. Roberts, J.
Joicey, J. Robertson, E.
Kilbride, D. Robinson, T.
Labouchere, H. Roe, T.
Lalor, R. Rowntree, J.
Lane, W. J. Russell, Sir C.
Lawson, Sir W. Sexton, T.
Leahy, J. Sheehy, D.
Leake, R. Sinclair, J.
Leamy, E. Spencer, hon. C. R.
Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S. Stack, J.
M'Arthur, W. A. Stanhope, hon. P. J.
M'Cartan, M. Stevenson, E. S.
M'Ewan, W. Stewart, H.
M'Lagan, P. Stuart, J.
M'Laren, W. S. B. Sullivan, D.
Mahony, P. Sullivan, T. D.
Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E. Swinburne, Sir J.
Molloy, B. C. Tanner, C. K.
Montagu, S. Thomas, D. A.
Morgan, rt. hon. G. O. Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.
Morgan, W. P. Tuite, J.
Morley, rt. hon. J. Waddy, S. D.
Morley, A. Warmington, C. M.
Murphy, W. M. Watt, H.
Nolan, J. Will, J. S.
O'Brien, J. F. X. Williamson, J.
O'Brien, P. Williamson, S.
O'Brien, P. J. Wilson, H. J.
O'Connor, J. Woodall, W.
O'Gorman Mahon, The Woodhead, J.
Oldroyd, M. Wright, O.
Pickard, B. TELLERS
Pickersgill, E. H. Clark, Dr. G. B.
Picton, J. A. Dillwyn, L. L.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Main Question put, and agreed to.