TENURE (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL. (Hansard, 17 July 1866)

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE,
in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, he was taking what might, perhaps, be thought an unusual and unreasonable course. He was anxious that their Lordships should read the Bill a second time. It had been a long time before the House, and from the information which he had received from all parts of Ireland, and from communications which he had had with Members of the other House, he had reason to believe that the principle on which the Bill was based was generally approved. He was, of course, well aware that any attempt to pass this Bill, or any other measure of the sort in the present Session, would be absurd; but he was anxious that their Lordships should affirm its principle, although he should not attempt to proceed with it beyond the second reading. Their Lordships would recollect that the first Bill which he had had the honour to lay before them was introduced into that House as long ago as the 20th of March. Some time since he was desired by the late Government to let the Bill rest until the measure on the same subject which had been introduced into the House of Commons should he brought into that House, so that the two Bills might be considered together. He had learnt with satisfaction that the Government Bill would not be further proceeded with that Session; but he thought that, as this subject had given rise to much discussion in Parliament, and also out of Parliament, especially in Ireland, it was highly desirable that some sound principle of legislation with regard to it should be recognized at least by one House of Parliament. The present Bill, though not identical in all its provisions with, was substantially the same as, that which he introduced about three months ago. Some changes had been made in matters of detail, but the principle remained the same. The clauses, for instance, had been condensed, and this Bill thereby made considerably shorter than its predecessor. Another alteration of some importance was the withdrawal of the re- 920 trospective clause. The principle of the Bill was a system of voluntary contracts between landlords and their tenants. He thought the tenure of land in Ireland ought to be in principle the same as that which prevailed in England. At the same time, he did not object to the principle that the tenant was entitled to compensation in respect of labour and capital legitimately laid out by him in improving the land; but he was far from recognizing the proposition which had been advanced that a tenant might make any outlay, or might at any time say he had made an outlay, and might claim compensation for it, even though such expenditure might have been made without the knowledge or positively against the will of the landlord. He had not introduced a retrospective clause in the present measure, because though such a provision might in some cases possibly be just, the effect of it would be to open a door to all kinds of fraud and offer many inducements to perjury. The doctrines which had been disseminated in Ireland had been brought into notice more or less prominently by the Bill of the late Government. The three principal clauses of that Bill had been discussed all over Ireland; and really the principle affirmed by those clauses was almost sufficient to create a revolution in the country, because it was the principle invariably put forward by those who sought to make the people rise against the Imperial Government—namely, a division of the ownership of land. He felt quite convinced that there was no intention to put forward these doctrines, either by the Government or by his right hon. Friend who introduced the Bill. But those who asked Parliament to pass the Bill did not rest their case on the assertion that its enactments would be just. They simply argued that it was desirable to do away with the present state of what was called "landlordism" and to create a peasant proprietary in Ireland. He had a great respect for learning and for men who distinguished themselves by their writings; but he had come to the conclusion that practical men, even though they might be much less learned, were more fitted to deal with these questions than some of the writers to whom he alluded. It was new to him to learn that the whole rural economy of England was a vicious exception to the rules which prevailed among mankind generally, and that ours was an exceptional case. Our whole agricultural system, including all the improvement in agricultural implements, turns out, it is now said, to be a mistake and quite 921 unsound on economic principles. We ought to have no large proprietors, but only small ones; and this was the way things ought to be arranged in Ireland. We were told that the example of England ought to be avoided, and that of the Continent adopted. Now, he knew what the condition of small farmers in some other countries was; and he ventured to assert that the small farmers of Belgium and Germany were not in a better state than those of Ireland. He should like to know where good farming was to be found among small proprietary farmers? Certainly not in France, where the small proprietors of land were deeply in debt to the usurers in the neighbourhood. There was nothing new in the proposals of the Government, which were precisely those which were mentioned in the writings of Wolfe Tone—and just such a system of confiscation as was to have been introduced if the French had succeeded in their descent on Ireland. In Ireland there had been small proprietors on tenures similar to those of copyholders in this country; and those who knew anything of Ireland from personal experience, or who had read much about that country, knew what the effect of such fixity of tenure had been. The land had then been the property of middlemen; it was sublet again and again; and nominal proprietorship, with holdings insufficient for the support of the tenants, was the result. If Parliament did away with the large proprietors, the farms of Ireland would continue "to grow small by degrees and beautifully less." He objected to proposals of this kind being made, even supposing they were not carried into effect, because they kept the country in a ferment. There was as good agriculture in Ireland, on a small scale as well as a large, as in any other part of the United Kingdom. The agricultural improvements which had been adopted in this country were gradually finding their way into Ireland; but if one wanted to look for improved machinery and improved stock in Ireland he would not think of going among the peasant proprietary for that purpose — such things must be sought for on the lands of those who held at least tolerably large farms. It was untrue that the tenants of Ireland were all at variance with their landlords, and that the lowest class of the peasantry were the miserable beings which some persons represented them to be. On the contrary, the lowest class of the Irish peasantry were a great deal better off than the lowest class in Continental countries, 922 except where there were peculiar circumstances which told in favour of the latter, and as well off as the lowest class in this country. No doubt the present state of the law was not satisfactory, and he should wish to see their Lordships manifest a disposition to legislate on the subject. On a former occasion he mentioned an instance to show that legislation was required; and since then the case "Chute v. Busteed" had been heard. It was reported in the Irish Common Law Reports, and the facts were thus stated— Appeal from the Court of Exchequer Chamber on the construction of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1860. The Court of Exchequer had decided by three Judges to one that the 12th section was retrospective. The Court of Appeal, consisting of seven Judges, decided unanimously that it is not. The main question was whether the Act had completely abolished a feudal principle or not. Mr. Justice O'Hagan said— 'It is manifestly difficult to exaggerate the importance of the question to the proprietors of land in Ireland.' The minor points discussed were whether the Act was a consolidating or amending Act. The Court of Exchequer had held that it was the former, so had the Court of Common Pleas, by three Judges to one, in a late case of 'Bayly v. Lord Conyngham.' But now this is overruled. Mr. Justice Christian: 'It is not, I think, remarkable for skill in composition, for acquaintance with its subject, or for circumspection or foresight in anticipating or providing against questions, I will not say possible, but probable, and, like the present, even certain to arise.' All concurred in condemning the defects of the Act. Mr. Justice O'Hagan said—'It is a very ponderous piece of legislation, not quite homogeneous in all its parts, or easy of construction in all its provisions. Many of the sections are expressly prospective, many of them expressly retrospective, many of them in terms both prospective and retrospective, and many equivocal. … I shall not go through them in detail, but numerically. Six are in terms prospective and retrospective; twenty-four are in terms prospective; seventy-five have no terms making them expressly either retrospective or prospective. The 12th section properly ranges itself in the last class; its terms are equivocal.' Chief Justice Lefroy said—'Some of the views taken of the statute, and pressed upon us in the course of the argument, would upset the foundations of the laws of real property, and no new foundations were suggested.' It was curious that the next two cases in the book were appeals on the same Act, which now regulates the tenure of land in Ireland. Many of the Judges had expressed themselves in strong terms upon the present state of the law, when cases arising out of its unsatisfactory condition had come before them. He was fully persuaded that Parliament was able by wise legislation to meet the wants of the country, and he held that he was quite justified in bringing the 923 present Bill forward. What he sought now was that their Lordships would read the Bill a second time, in order to affirm the principles it embodied. Ireland was in a very depressed condition, the effects of the financial crisis being felt through all classes of society; and were Parliament to show that it would set itself in earnest to deal with the subject great good would be done. Wise enactments regulating the relationship between landlord and tenant would do much to further the prosperity of agriculture.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
I not think this Bill gives us a fair opportunity of discussing the very large and complicated questions relating to the landlord and tenant of Ireland. I am not about to follow the noble Marquess through the statement he has made and the principles he has laid down, though I entirely concur with him that our object should not be to subvert the arrangement now existing between landlord and tenant and introduce a class of peasant proprietors, but to simplify and improve the laws which regulate the matter. While I am desirous to uphold the rights of property, I would also remove all possibility of pressure or injustice being inflicted on the tenant farmer. My noble Friend, of course, has not proposed to do more than ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time in order to affirm the principles which he has laid down without binding ourselves in the slightest degree to the details of the Bill. I cannot help saying that most of the principles are sound, just, and reasonable, and that the House and the country are under great obligations to my noble Friend for the great pains he has taken in examining this exceedingly complicated subject, and adopting a just and reasonable course between the some what conflicting interests of landlord and tenant. The principles of the Bill are— first, that all encouragement should be given to agreements in writing between landlord and tenant, which is a very important provision; and next, that great latitude should be given between landlord and tenant for entering into voluntary agreements for the management of the land. In order that this should be done, my noble Friend has introduced various forms of lease and various terms of agreement which may be adopted by the two parties. In this way a record would be 924 secured which could not be disputed. Then, again, the Bill contains provisions for facilitating an action for recovery on the part of the landlord or tenant, and thus by a simple and easy mode of procedure settling all difficulties. It further establishes a tribunal, cheap and easy, to which might be referred the interpretations of covenants; and lastly, it lays down rules by which the tenant at the expiration of a certain time may claim, according to the stipulated conditions, compensation for the improvements he has made in pursuance of the terms of his contract. These, my Lords, shortly stated, are the leading principles of the Bill, which I hold are fair and reasonable. I do not, however, in consenting to the second reading of it, bind myself in regard to the adoption of its details. It is a question which it will be the duty of the Government to take into consideration during the recess; and I can only say that my noble Friend by introducing the present Bill has given increased facilities to the Government in the further consideration of the subject. Without pledging myself to the details of the Bill, and without entering into the large question of landlord and tenant, I shall give my cheerful assent to the second reading of the Bill.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he understood that in consenting to the second reading of the Bill their Lordships did not pledge themselves to the acceptance of its details, for there were various provisions requiring amendment. Under these circumstances, he would not oppose the Bill of the noble Marquess.