§ * MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I need only say a few words. The Land Act of 1887 left a considerable number of perpetuity and long leaseholders outside its provisions, and this Bill merely provides that these leaseholders shall have the right to purchase out their interest under Lord Ashbourne's Act or have a fair rent fixed by the Land Court. I hope the House will accept the Second Reading, and in that event I shall be ready to fix the Committee for a distant date so that all care and consideration may be given to the Bill.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,) Dublin UniversityThis is a Bill the Government are not able to accept. Its principle is contrary to the principle of the measure which has been attended with so much success in Ireland. Lord Ashbourne's Act is purely voluntary in its action, and the great defect of this Bill is that is against the main principle of that Act. I recognize the attempt to deal with the case of the perpetuity leaseholders, which presents itself to the hon. Member's mind as a grievance in connection with the Irish Land Question, and no doubt the Bill is an honest attempt to deal with it; but proceeding on the lines I have indicated, the Bill contains a principle which the Government cannot accept, and, therefore, I must oppose the Second Reading.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)I think I never heard a Bill proposed in a more extraordinary manner; and it is equalled in the way in which it is opposed. We have had nothing from the proposer of the Bill—not the slightest heartiness or the slightest desire evinced to see it carried into 1335 effect, and from the manner in which it has been met we might gather that the whole thing was arranged beforehand between the Government and the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The hon. Member discharges a pious duty towards a certain portion of his constituents in proposing the Bill, without the least desire to see it carried; he proposes it in a half-hearted manner, without advancing the slightest reason in its support, while the Government think so lightly of him and his Bill, that the Solicitor General for Ireland disposes of them with the briefest words. I am very glad indeed to see the great Liberal Union Alliance has come down to this. I am rejoiced to think this is the result of the great Liberal Unionist compact with the Times. "That it should come to this!" The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, when he kicks out the Bill, kicks with so little ceremony that he does not, out of courtesy to the hon. Member for South Tyrone, spend a few words to give a decent grace to the act of summary dismissal. This is a most instructive evening for the constituents of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. We have him posing as a supporter of the Union, but at the same time he is most anxious that the "diggers and delvers" of South Tyrone, the people who till the soil, the honest Orangemen, the people who love their country—not as we do—the hard-headed people of South Tyrone, who love the Government of law and order, should get their rights in Parliament by returning a Member who, while cordially supporting the Union, and all the great purposes of the Union, is at the same time the extremest Radical on Land Questions. Well, we have seen to-night what all this flummery amounts to. I observe the Chancellor of the Exchequer growing slightly uneasy; will he, with Liberal Unionist force and humour, express to the House the great advantages of this measure from a Liberal Unionist point of view, this Bill which has "some features that specially recommend it"? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1887 professed the principle of admitting leaseholders under 99 years to the right of having fair rents fixed; but why are 99 years' lease to be omitted and 100 years to be left outside? I hope Members of the Government are not pro- 1336 moting a "count" against this great Liberal Unionist question. I do not wish to detain the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) to listen to me, but to wait for the reply of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The gloom in which we were obscured in 1887 was suddenly irradiated by the light of a Liberal Unionist Chancellor of the Exchequer. Persons who hold for longer than 99 years, he says, must be considered as purchasers—they must be considered as having a perpetuity; and the great object of the Liberal Unionist Party and the Tory Party, of which he is so distinguished a Member—for he spoke of the Tories the other day as "We the Tory Party"—is to root in the tillers of the soil perpetuity of tenure. We had to allow the Bill of 1887 to pass in that shape and form, but stirring meetings were held in Ireland on this subject at the end of 1887 and during the whole of 1888, and the Ulster leaseholders clamoured for relief. Well, it is rather remarkable that the only class of persons for whom the learned Solicitor General for Ireland has no sympathy, and whom he proposes to exclude from the benefit of a fair rent under this Liberal Unionist measure, are the loyal classes of Ireland. These classes would have nothing to do with us. Oh, no; they would not touch us with a 40-foot pole. They are all "loyal men and true," and they entrust their fortunes to that distinguished Member of this House, the Member for South Tyrone. They know that he is employed about the country, paid by some mysterious source, acting on behalf of the Government, speaking in the name of the Government, promising that there will be evictions here and no evictions there, and they naturally thought they might treat with this Plenipotentiary on the Land Question. The hon. Member for South Tyrone gets up to night, and how does he treat these poor people, the long leaseholders? Why, he does not even pretend to argue the question. He dismisses it in a sentence without so much as pretending to understand it. It is not as though he were dealing with a subject which could be disposed of in a sentence, or as if there were no time to discuss the Bill. With a view to enable it to come on—and, in part, to oblige the Scotch Members—I re- 1337 frained from bringing forward a Motion which I had put down on the paper. I must say I had an eye to the bringing on of this great hybrid piece of Liberal Unionist legislation. We have three and a half hours before us for the discussion of this Bill, but the hon. Member for South Tyrone did not occupy three and a half minutes in describing the grievances of the long leaseholders. I doubt if he took half a minute, and though we are all anxious to get on with the business I must say that I think the fate of these unfortunate leaseholders is a subject which should have induced the hon. Member who so keenly sympathizes with them to pour out from his bleeding heart a word or two of commiseration for their woes, as he had the opportunity of doing to-night. It is seldom that a private Member has an opportunity of this kind. It is only in consequence of your very fair ruling, Sir, that any Member of the House had the opportunity of bringing on this legislation. Your ruling gave an opportunity which anyone desirous of promoting the interests of the Irish farmer would gladly have availed himself of, and that is exactly the opportunity which the hon. Member for South Tyrone has thrown away. To-night is the first opportunity we have had for years of bringing on a private Member's Bill on Friday night when Supply is put down. It is a golden opportunity—a Liberal Unionist opportunity—an opportunity which I should have thought the hon. Member for South Tyrone would gladly have seized hold of. I can only deplore that Her Majesty's Government and the Liberal Unionist Party should have no heart in a measure for the relief of the Ulster farmers. We all know there is no Irish grievance which the Liberal Unionist Party are not pining to remove so long as its removal does not interfere with the Union. Oh, the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) to remove Irish grievances! Those grievances are killing him. Well, here is a chance of depriving the miserable agitators who infest Ireland, and are the bane of that unhappy country, of another grievance. One would expect the First Lord of the Treasury to spring to his feet with alacrity, and say, "This measure may not be perfect in its details; there 1338 may be some faults of draftsmanship about it; there may be some little defects in it one way or the other, but we will not reject the Second Reading; we will send it to a Select Committee, or even give it the favour we extend to Scotch herrings—we will send it up to a Standing Committee." But, Sir, Scotch herrings are one thing and Irish tenants are another. The grievances of the Scottish fishermen may be dealt with by a Standing Committee; but Irish farmers, even under the wing of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, are to be kicked out of this House without even a word of sympathy, or without even the pretence of argument, by the learned Solicitor General for Ireland. Now, Sir, I desire, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone has entirely betrayed the cause of those who entrusted him with this important measure, to say one or two words upon the scope of the Bill. I know, of course, that the Liberal Unionist Government are most anxious for a "count out;" and no doubt the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone would be happy to promote it with them, but I decline to enter into that conspiracy. I intend to take advantage of this unusual chance that has been afforded to us to expose exactly, in the light of day, the state of the case and the situation as it has now presented itself; and I may say, in the first instance, that this measure represents the united action—I am speaking now of the measure to include in the benefits of the Land Act all leaseholders—of a large organized body of Loyalists in Ireland. Now, an Irish Loyalist is so rare a specimen of an Irishman that I should have thought the hon. Member for South Tyrone would have thought it right to tell us something about his grievances. These people who are excluded from the benefits of the Land Act are, as a rule, members of the Loyalist Party. They have been labouring under their grievance patiently, because, above all things, the beauty of the Irish Loyalist is that he is a patient animal. He is always boasting about his patience—he is always telling us that he does not go out with a mask on his face, or with moonlighters. He lies as quietly as a slug under a garden roller, and takes every unpleasantness that falls to his lot as if it were a dispensation from 1339 Providence, instead of a dispensation of the Government. These Irish leaseholders have begged and prayed of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone to submit their case to a sympathetic House of Commons. They say—
This is an Imperial Parliament; we are all anxious to be under the rule of such a Parliament, and we, therefore, expect that our grievances will be attended to by it, and we confidently submit to the House that it is unfair that we should be under rack rents, whilst our neighbour across the road, whose lease is only for ninety-nine years, is able to go to the Land Court and get a fair rent fixed.I would ask on what ground can this abominable disability be continued? I say there is no ground, and that, as a matter of fact, since the Act of 1870 was passed, leases for extremely long periods have been forced on the tenants at the point of the bayonet; and it is because these men have had these leases forced on them for these long periods that now you refuse to remedy the situation. I say that there is no logic, reason, or common sense in that position, and one might at least expect that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in his position as a leading Liberal Unionist has done so much service to the Government on this Irish Land Question, which I believe he so thoroughly understands—which I believe he understands as well as the Egyptian Canal Question—I should have expected that he would have said, "Let us go to the Select Committee and take evidence, and see what is the extent and scope of this grievance." But what does he do? I saw him put up the Irish Solicitor General—who, I am bound to say, I do not think understands anything about the Bill. There is not a keener intellect in the House than that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and if he had been afforded two minutes he would have digested the Bill and understood all about it. But the Government put him up—and it may be that even now, at the eleventh hour, they may mean to retrace their steps, because I observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been bending his giant mind to the task of understanding the measure of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. I do trust that as I am making this appeal on behalf of the Loyalists of Ulster the Govern- 1340 ment will now consider it in a fair and reasonable spirit. I am quite free to admit that the consideration of the clauses of the measure may, perhaps, be relegated to a more favourable opportunity when a "count" is not in the offing; but with regard to the proposal to admit leaseholders, I do say that if the Government will accept my assurance that the Loyalists in Ireland would be most gratified to see this principle accepted, and will do something to secure its adoption, they will be taking a step in the right direction. Let them remember that most of these loyal and long-suffering leaseholders are Orangemen and most strenuous supporters of the Unionist Party, and that a number of them came over to this country not long ago, and poured into the sympathetic bosom of Lord Salisbury an account of their grievances. Has it come to this—that after this measure has been so fully explained by this worthy body of men, it is to meet with such scant courtesy on the part of a House which has such ample time to attend to it? I hope it will be understood in the country that the House of Commons has no other business but this before it. There is not a single item of business remaining on the Paper except this, and we have yet some hours at our disposal before the hour for adjournment. Parliament, for once in its long-centuried historical existence, has perfect leisure to attend to this small Irish grievance; and I, therefore, do trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with that anxiety he feels to remove Irish grievances—reasonable grievances put forward by the hon. Member for South Tyrone in a calm spirit and in a business-like way, embracing, I believe, two sentences—the time of the House not having been taken up with long and wordy harangues—I do trust, I say, that the right hon. Gentleman will, at Least, condescend to give attention to this measure. And I say, for my own part, that, representing as I do a Nationalist constituency, I would sincerely urge the Government, if they want to assure their supporters in the Loyalist districts of Ireland of the earnestness of their desire to remove grievances, to regard this question of leaseholders as one which, above all others, should be attended to. It cannot be pretended—and this is a misfortune from the 1341 Government point of view—that there is not ample time to attend to the matter. If you were to count out the House it would show that you were indifferent to the interests of the Loyalists of Ireland, and were ready to count out a measure introduced by one of your own supporters. Therefore you are debarred from such ruthless procedure as that. There only remains then the question, as you have ample time, "oceans" of it, in which to deal with this measure, what is it that stops you from doing justice to the Irish leaseholders? It cannot be want of will, because we know you have most anxiously at heart the improvement of the material prosperity of the Irish people. We know you have no arguments, as the Solicitor General for Ireland—than whom you could not have a keener advocate—had none to offer, and he met the thing with a simple non possumus. It cannot be that you have not sufficient time, or that you want a count out. I have shown how this particular measure has the strongest claim upon the time and attention of Parliament. I have disposed of every possible objection that can be taken to it; I have shown that the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone has been sent to this House by a body of Loyalists most anxious in every way to uphold the Union, and that he, as their spokesman, asks you to attend to the measure. And I, uniting and associating myself to the fullest extent with the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone—joining myself with him in the desire that this House should do ample justice to the Loyalists, I do trust that you will, to-night, by passing this measure, do an act of justice which will enable this House, and especially its Unionist Members, for all future time to say that nothing shall stand between them and justice to Ireland when the great cause of the Union is not interfered with.
§ * MR. C. W. GRAY (Essex, Maldon)I have listened with considerable interest to the somewhat lengthy speech of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. T. Healy), who has just sat down, and I regret the tone of levity which pervaded the greater part of it. In my opinion, the subject of land, in 1342 connection with Irish tenants, is one that ought not to be treated with levity in this House. I can assure hon. Members opposite that we English agriculturists watch with great interest all measures that are brought forward in this House relative to Irish land and Irish tenancies, and I am sure there are many on this side of the House who are sincerely anxious, where it can be shown that there is anything unfair in connection with those tenancies, that the unfairness shall be as speedily as possible removed. We are all perfectly well aware of what the Irish tenants must have suffered; for the agricultural depression which affects them, as well as the English tenants, has been common to all parts of the United Kingdom, and we can honestly say that, whenever there is a reasonable opportunity of doing so, we are desirous of assisting in the passage of measures that will, to some extent, alleviate the difficulties of our Irish brother farmers, But I think the hon. Member for Longford was hardly serious in the speech he made—and a most interesting speech it was—or he would not have treated with so much levity a subject which we are told is one of so much importance to the Irish tenants. This Bill has come somewhat unexpectedly before the House, owing to some accidental circumstances; and in dealing with it as it now stands, I would ask hon. Members on that side of the House whether, if Her Majesty's Government had proposed to deal with so important a question as this unexpectedly, they would not have been the very persons to get up in their places and say, "How can you undertake to deal with such a question as this without having given the House sufficient time to consider it?" I can assure hon. Members opposite that the interest felt in this question does not belong altogether to that side of the House, and I say without hesitation that every Member on this side of the House is anxious that all questions connected with Irish tenancies should be dealt with not in an off-hand way, as will be the case to-night, but 1343 with that consideration and care which its importance demands. If Lord Ashbourne's Act has worked well—and I have never heard it suggested that as far as it goes it is not a beneficial and a good Act—I ask, would it not be a pity to make a departure from it? I am not sure that the Irish Members opposite take the best course when they so persistently find fault with Her Majesty's Government whenever it proposes to do anything; and then, on the other hand, as persistently blame it for something it does not propose to do. This line of action is injuring the Nationalist Party in this country, and I say so with perfect honesty. As long as the Nationalist Party are only going for measures of justice which the English tenants themselves would like to see passed, they will be supported not only in this House but in the country generally; but I am sure the English people will not be impressed with the earnestness of the Irish Members on this occasion, as evidenced by the speech of the hon. Member for Longford. We on this side of the House have all along recognized that there are undoubted Irish grievances, and we desire to see them brought forward in an honest way and with a single purpose; but we do not think they should be made a stalking-horse for the mere purpose of getting the Party that now holds the reins out of office and of placing another Party in office. We want all grievances brought before the country in a bonâ fide way, and to see them when before this House debated with earnestness. If hon. Members opposite will only accept this hint from me, in the belief that it is made with perfect sincerity, and will put before us genuine measures dealing with questions of Irish land and Irish tenancies, they will find that hon. Members on this side will be more inclined to listen to their arguments than when our debates are mixed up with so much bitter Party feeling. I implore hon. Members opposite to try and drop that bitterness, and put before us what they regard as practical remedies for the grievances of the Irish tenants. In that case I believe that many of us on this side of the House would do all in our power to get those practical remedies carried into effect as speedily as possible. If, however, you are to go behind Lord Ashbourne's Act and alter the greater 1344 principle of that measure without due consideration—
§ * MR. T. W. RUSSELLI would point out to the hon. Member that this Bill, so far from upsetting Lord Ashbourne's Act, actually proposes to extend that Act to a certain class of tenants now exempted from it.
§ * MR. C. W. GRAYI accept the statement of the hon. Member, but I think my argument will apply equally to the way in which he has put the case. If you apply Lord Ashbourne's Act in the manner now proposed, without being very careful of what you are doing, you may set up precedents which will eventually land you in great difficulty. We English tenants watch all these proposed changes with a great deal of interest, because we are not sure how soon the time may come when we shall be seeking similar reforms for ourselves; and this is one reason why I so anxiously hope that when this question is practically debated there will be a fair attendance of those Members who represent English agricultural interests in this House, I do not see why we should not be able to give you a helping hand.
§ * MR. SPEAKERI would call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he is not discussing the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ * MR. C. W. GRAYI bow, Sir, to your ruling, and am sorry you have had the trouble to rise; but I do not wish to go into the details of the Bill.
§ MR. CRILLY (Mayo, N.)Will you permit me to say that, as an Irish Member, I quite recognize the friendly and kindly spirit in which the hon. Member for Maldon has just spoken, and I am quite sure if the same spirit were more frequently evinced by hon. Gentlemen opposite—and I am sorry to see now those empty benches—when questions affecting the agricultural tenants of Ireland are discussed, they would be more speedily and more satisfactorily settled. One reason given for the rejection of 1345 this Bill by the hon. Member, which was applauded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was that it had been brought forward unexpectedly. Any Member, either inside or outside the House, knows very small that this question of he leaseholders of Ireland is an old one. Any gentleman in the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who knows, or professes to know, the condition of Ireland, would be aware that no Parliamentary Session could open without the question of the leaseholders of Ireland being brought forward. Therefore I think that the excuse given for the action of the Government—that this Bill has come on unexpectedly—is not a genuine one. This question has been before the House on many previous occasions. It is a pressing and vital question. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well from experience that a large number of his supporters from Ireland have every cause to complain of the action of the Government on this question. Now, although we have not perhaps many friends among the leaseholders, and anxious as we are to settle the social condition of Ireland, we are also anxious to press upon this House the necessity of dealing with this question as quickly as possible. We must press the Government to take some other action than they have taken to-night. I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone is proud of his friends, and of the action of the present Government, which he supports through thick and thin. I daresay he thought that they would have accepted his Bill; so, without deigning to give one single word of explanation, he moved the Second Reading. I hope that he is grateful to the Government, and that he will convey to the leaseholders of Ireland the fact that they have nothing to hope for from the present Government. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will yet tell us the Government do not intend to meet this Bill with a point-blank refusal. They cannot plead the excuse that there is no time to 1346 debate it, for we have nearly three hours before us. The Bill might even be advanced by promising to deal with it in Committee; at least the promise might be held out that the leaseholders will be assisted in the coming year. There are many clauses of the Bill with which I do not agree, but I hope the Government will not shut the door on the principle that it is their duty to come to the assistance of the leaseholders of Ireland.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,) St. George's, Hanover SquareI think that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite have enjoyed the opportunity of displaying a little political hypocrisy. But they have disguised the fact that this is entirely an unexpected debate. The hon. Member who has just sat down, by a rather clever rhetorical device, suggested that the Bill was not unexpected. Certainly it was not thought by any Member of this House that the evening would be devoted to this subject. The hon. Member has challenged us to take a Division, but we ought not to do so in the absence of those who are interested in the Bill which they did not expect would be debated to-night. Why, the hon. Member himself is said to have stated he did not expect it to come on.
§ * MR. T. W. RUSSELLI never was consulted on the matter.
§ MR. GOSCHENThe language which was used by the hon. Member to some Members of the House was that he did not expect to be able to reach this Bill to-night.
§ * MR. T. W. RUSSELLI hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow me to say that the Bill came on quite unexpectedly to myself, but I never said to any Member that I did not expect it to come on, I had no conversation about the Bill, and it was only when the House was dividing on the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton that I recognized it would come on.
§ MR. GOSCHENThen the impression conveyed to me was not absolutely correct. The hon. Member says he had no idea it was coming on; neither had 1347 the Irish Secretary nor hon. Members from Ireland who are interested in it. In such circumstances it has often been the practice to adjourn the debate on a Bill reached unexpectedly. I am sure my hon. Friend is quite aware that if the Chief Secretary had had any idea that the Bill would come on he would have been in his place and have been able to deal with the Bill. No disrespect was intended to those Members by the Solicitor General, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not see in anything that has happened any intention on the part of the Government to treat with any disrespect the proposals he has brought before the House. The hon. Gentleman will see that there is a wide difference between this Bill and Lord Ashbourne's Act, for while the latter makes the expropriation of owners voluntary the hon. Gentleman's Bill will make it compulsory. I would suggest that the hon. Member should consent to the adjournment of the debate. If the Bill be pressed to a Division in the absence of those who take an interest in it, the Government will have no option but to vote against it. The Government are, however, anxious that every opportunity should be given for the discussion of the Bill, and I think the best course will be to adjourn the debate.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI can only speak by the indulgence of the House; but I hope I may be allowed to say that if I introduced the Bill in a somewhat summary way, it was because I saw every Member wished the early adjournment of the House, and I thought the Government might assent to the Second Heading. I wish to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if I accept the suggestion to adjourn the discussion to another day I shall be practically giving up my chance of bringing on again a Bill which I believe to be urgently necessary in the interest of a large number of leaseholders in every part of Ireland, for the Government have given no promise of facilities for another day to continue the discussion. I have a duty to perform as a Member of this House, 1348 and unless I get such a promise I must press the Motion to a Division.
§ * MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E)I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not press a Motion for the adjournment of the debate. It is quite notorious that the principle of this Bill has been before the Government during the last two Sessions; and if it is only for the purpose of gaining time as regards the clauses, the Second Beading can be assented to, with the reservation on the part of the Government that it will deal with them in Committee. I am sure that, as a Scotchman, I shall not be charged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with speaking on this subject in a bantering tone or sarcastic manner; but I think the case of the Irish leaseholders is so pressing that every Member who represents an agricultural constituency should lose no opportunity of bringing the principle of the Bill before the House. I hope the hon. Member for South Tyrone will take the sense of the House on it.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 87.—Majority 41.—(Division List, No. 13.)