BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 23 March 1866)

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
, in calling the attention of the House to the Law relating to the Tenure and Improvement of land in Ireland, said, that although he did not think that any material alteration of the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland was necessary, still he thought it possible to effect some improvement, and with that view he had prepared a Bill upon the subject which he hoped would meet with their Lordships' approval. If the time had arrived for legislating upon the subject, he thought that that legislation ought to be made upon the principle that the law of real property in Ireland should be assimilated to the law which affected real property in England. There had been a great deal of clamour on this subject. That most villainous and insane conspiracy of the Fenians, although utterly contemptible as affecting the United Kingdom, had, undoubtedly, done a great deal of harm—he hoped not of a permanent character—and the persons who had organized the conspiracy had the satisfaction of knowing that they had greatly injured the prospects and the welfare of their country. The public credit had, to a certain extent, suffered injury, and the course of improvement had been arrested. If the present agitation as to land went on, and if real property in Ireland were not to be protected by the same laws as of those of England, credit would be endangered, and capital would be prevented from flowing into that country. Their Lordships knew that numerous Bills had been prepared upon this subject, and that it had been discussed by a sort of Parliament in Dublin, in which they talked as coolly of taking away the property of the owners of land in Ireland as they would of any other speculation. A noble Friend of his (Lord Houghton) had also coolly suggested the other night that Irish landlords should surrender some of their rights, though it was hard to know why; and in this state of things he believed that the time was come when Parliament should lay down the principles upon which the law should be improved whilst adhering to the sound principles of the law of real property in England. There was a good deal of difficulty besetting this question, arising not so much from defective legislation as from the habits of the 832 people, which led to a loose mode of dealing between the landlord and tenant, and gave rise to occasional injustice suffered on either side. It was true that there were rumours that the Government were about to take up this question; but as they had not said that they would do so until after he had given his notice he had prepared the Bill he held in his hand. He was sorry to hear the rumours abroad as to the nature of the Government Bill, and therefore he thought it desirable to return to the principles embodied in Acts, accepted by that House some years ago. The subject was discussed in 1853, and the Bill which he had now prepared was founded to a great extent upon the same principle as those upon which a Bill which he had the honour of introducing to their Lordships' notice in that year was founded. A good deal of the Bill of 1853 had been embodied in an Act subsequently introduced by Mr. Cardwell and the Irish Attorney General Mr. Deasy, in 1860, which had passed into law; but the working of that Act had not been found satisfactory. He had, indeed, been informed that there were only three instances in which the machinery of that Act had been availed of, and although he could not say whether that number was correct, it was undoubtedly the fact that the Act had not answered its purpose. The object of the Bill which he had now the honour of bringing forward was to hold out the greatest possible inducement, and to make as compulsory as possible the employment of written agreements between landlords and tenants. The rights of both parties were clearly defined, and a simple remedy was afforded in the case of any wrong being attempted or suffered by either. The tenant would be secured from loss in the case of his effecting improvements upon the property which he occupied if those improvements had been sanctioned by the landlord. It was generally held that a tenant who improved the property in his occupation ought, if turned out, to receive compensation or was entitled to the enjoyment for a reasonable period of the property which he had so improved, and that was, undoubtedly, simple justice. But, in reality, many of the so-called improvements were no improvements at all, and were effected not only without the consent of, but in the very teeth of the landlord. It was absurd, in such cases, for a tenant to maintain that he was entitled to compensation on leaving. The tenant might set up close to the residence of the 833 landlord and under his very eye a positive nuisance which might be the destruction of the rest of the property, and he might then turn round and say that he valued the works at so much, and that he must be paid the full value before he was turned out. That was certainly an extreme case, and one not likely often to occur; but any man of experience must know how many things might be done under the name of improvement—in drainage, for instance—which might be a considerable injury to the property of the landlord and to the neighbourhood in general. Persons in speaking on this subject always talked of the small farmers, who undoubtedly had at times been very harshly treated—just as the landlords had been sometimes unjustly dealt with by the tenants. But he always missed, when he read an account of meetings on this subject, the names of men who were large tenant-farmers in Ireland. He knew many of these, both in the east and in the west, and he never saw any of them coming forward with complaints. And who were the men who were examined before the Committee of the other House last year? Why, men who did not possess afoot of land, and would not know how to manage a farm if they had one. These were the men who presented themselves as the best judges of what was to be done with the land in Ireland. Now, in his opinion, Parliament should lose no time in taking up this subject, and deciding on what principles they would proceed to legislate. The questions of tenure and improvement were both comprised in the Bill which he was about to submit to their Lordships. In 1860 Mr. Card well and the Attorney General for Ireland of the day treated these questions in separate Bills; but he thought both might now be embodied in one measure. What he would recommend to their Lordships was to take a view of the whole question, so as to be able fully to consider it in all its bearings. It was impossible for the law to make good landlords or good tenants. All that could be done by legislation was to facilitate just dealings as much as possible, and to render it advantageous for both parties to act in a fair spirit. When the Bill was printed it would be circulated among their Lordships. They would also soon have the Government measures which they had seen sketched in the newspapers, and he hoped that an early opportunity would be afforded Her Majesty's Government of declaring fully and explicitly that they were as determined to uphold the rights of pro- 834 perty in Ireland as they were the rights of property in England, and thus give encouragement to persons to invest their money in Ireland. That was what was really wanted. He had heard people say, "How are we to know how to deal with our property when there is an uncertainty as to the kind of legislation we may have next year?" In conclusion, he begged to lay the Bill upon the table.

LORD DUNSANY
said, he was quite satisfied that the noble Marquess had no sinister or political motive in bringing this subject forward; but, at the same time, he might express his opinion, that raising discussions on such a question was attended with danger; and the mooting of the subject at the present time had given rise to hopes which had better not be gratified, and had enabled the revolutionary parties who were now agitating Ireland to use it for their own designs. It was no recommendation to these designs to see that they were approved by a distinguished Member of the other branch of the Legislature, Mr. Bright, who, ho presumed, held the same principles to be applicable to England. The party which were now agitating the question of land tenure in Ireland were not desirous of compensation for improvements. What they desired was fixity of tenure, or, in other words, to transfer from the landlord to the tenants certain rights now belonging to the landlord. He could satisfy their Lordships from the recognized organs of the party that they rejected and repudiated the idea of compensation. He could quote from The Freeman's Journal, which was well known to represent the tenant-right party, which was made up mostly of priests, who told landlords their duties and tenants their rights, to prove that such was the fact. The paper to which he referred had said— We believe he considers he has a sort of claim to the land, from which to oust him would be a moral wrong. We believe no mere scheme of compensation for improvements with or without notice to the landlord will induce the tenant to spend money. He is utterly indifferent to compensation. That was perfectly intelligible. The cry of tenant-right was perfectly intelligible, because it meant the permanent occupation of the land by the present tenants, the landlords being like pensioners, like 835 dowagers, or other incumbrancers upon it. Such views would never have met with any favour were it not that a considerable misconception prevailed with regard to the land question in Ireland. Even in that House their Lordships had heard it broadly asserted that in Ireland the tenants make the improvements. That assertion was made the other night by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Dufferin), whose sketch of Irish affairs entitled him to the gratitude of every Irishman, and from whose statement he did not wish to dissent in any way except with regard to that particular point. No doubt, the noble Lord was quite correct with respect to the province of Ulster; but with regard to the other three Provinces it was correct only in a limited sense that the tenant made the improvements, and for this reason, because unfortunately no improvements were made there at all. It would be better if the tenants in Ireland, instead of looking to the Legislature to remedy what they complained of, would go to their landlords and arrange the terms upon which improvements might be made.

LORD DUFFERIN
said, that having already had occasion recently to trouble their Lordships at considerable length upon this subject, he would refrain from doing so now. It was the less necessary he should do so, because it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce into the other House a Bill upon the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland. On a previous occasion what he said was that, as a general rule, buildings in various parts of Ireland were erected by the tenants; but he took occasion especially to mention that within the last five years no less a sum than £75,370 had been spent by the landlords alone, under the Land Improvement Act, in the erection of farm buildings, and that this expenditure must be a small proportion of the expenditure incurred out of the ordinary revenues of the Irish landlords. It may be considered a general rule that in Ulster the tenants erect the farm buildings; but there were many exceptions; there was a case in his own neighbourhood in which a landlord had expended £15,000 in fifteen years on various improvements of that description. He was also glad to have this opportunity of correcting a statement he made the other evening when he was referring to the material progress of Ireland during the last twenty-five years. Speaking from memory he gave £40,000,000 as the increase in wealth, whereas he found the increase 836 exceeded £50,000,000. He did not include railways as an element in his calculations, because the unsatisfactory condition of the affairs of railway companies might result, as much from bad management as from any want of prosperity in the country. It so happened, however, that a reference to the railways told the same tale of prosperity. The returns of the six principal railway companies showed an increased dividend of a half percent this year. The Great Southern and Western for the last five years had been paying only 4½ per cent; last year it paid 5. The Dublin and Drogheda Railway during four years paid 4 per cent; last year but one it paid 4½, and last year 5. The Ulster Company the year before last paid 4 per cent, and last year 4½. The Dublin and Belfast Junction Company paid 3½ per cent the year before last, and last year 4½. The Belfast and Northern Counties paid 3½ per cent the year before last, and last year 5. On reference to the reports made by the directors to their several companies, he found that nearly all congratulated the shareholders upon the improvement exhibited by their respective undertakings.

THE EARL OF BELMORE
desired to remind their Lordships that the law of distress was falling into disuse; for himself, he could say that during the ten years he had the management of his property he had never had recourse to it. Ejectments were also less usual; and with a view of throwing some light on the subject, he begged to give notice that after the Easter recess he would move for a Return of the number of ejectments, as also of the replevins granted in the courts in Ireland in the last six years.

§ EARL RUSSELL
I quite agree with the noble Marquess in thinking that both landlords and tenants in Ireland are entitled to know under what law they are to live. Therefore, I think it is desirable Parliament should settle what that law is to be. I do not quite concur in the suggestion to assimilate the laws of England and Ireland. There are abuses in Ireland which have not existed in England, and it would be quite right to apply remedies in Ireland although they may not be necessary in England. A case must be made out, and the remedy must be shown to be appropriate to the disease. I shall be glad to promote any measure by which I believe the question can be settled on terms acceptable to both parties.

THE EARL OF PORTARLINGTON
believed that difficulties seldom arose on well-managed estates, and that they were chiefly occasioned by properties passing into the hands of land jobbers who turned out tenants to get higher rents.