THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, in calling the attention of their Lordships to the question of Land Tenure in Ireland, and presenting a Bill on the subject, said, the measure was only a repetition of one which he brought forward last year. He regretted to say that the lapse of time had not at all diminished the difficulty or the importance of the question. It might be considered presumption in him to tender fresh legislative proposals at that moment, bearing in mind that there were already on the table of the House of Commons four Bills relating to the question of landlord and tenant in Ireland; but he did not think there was anything in those measures, so far as their nature had yet transpired, which need prevent their Lordships from examining the land question as a whole for themselves. What he was about to propose in no way entered into competition with the Government Bill which related exclusively to the question of compensation for improvements made by the tenants. That subject was of great interest in itself, and was one that it was extremely important to deal with, because it had been made the pretext for the most absurd propositions and the most ridiculous claims. But the Bill he was about to introduce related to the larger question of the tenure of land. He need not enlarge upon the general subject, for it had been very ably discussed during the recess by a noble Friend of his (Lord Dufferin), a Member of that House, who in his letters had thoroughly investigated and explained it; by Lord Rosse, also, in a pamphlet familiar, he hoped, to the majority of their Lordships; and in another pamphlet by the noble Viscount on the cross-benches (Viscount Lifford.) The literature of the question had also received additions from various writers and speakers. Nevertheless, the difficulties in the way of legislation had not been diminished by all this discussion, nor were they at all likely to diminish unless their Lordships determined to adopt and adhere to sound principles. Although, as he had said, this question required further investigation, he was bound to say he believed there was nothing in the agricultural condition of Ireland at the present moment or in the relations existing between landlord and tenant of a very unsatisfactory character. On the contrary, at that moment, in spite of the Fenian rising 794 and agitation, there was nothing to show that the relations existing between landlord and tenant were in general otherwise than cordial and satisfactory. He said that advisedly, referring to the tenant farmers of Ireland; and he might add that the condition of the agricultural labourer generally in the country was greatly improved. The landlords received their rents easily, and the farmers had been obtaining recently large profits in the legitimate and honourable course of business. They hold their land at fair and equitable rents, and were able to cultivate their holdings at a fair and reasonable profit. This condition of prosperity was shown in some degree by the reports of the principal railways in Ireland. The improved condition of the country was strikingly evidenced by the last report of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, in which a most satisfactory account was given of the business of the railway during the past year. With the exception of sheep, it appeared that the traffic in every kind of agricultural produce had increased. The goods traffic had likewise increased. He attached much importance to that fact, because it was well known that many of the towns in the interior of Ireland had suffered materially in their trade from the continuous emigration that had been going on. There could be no doubt that those of the population that had remained at home must have considerably improved in their condition, and that their powers of consumption had become much greater. All those facts went to show that the general prosperity of the country had improved, although he was sorry to say that it had not kept pace with that of the other parts of the United Kingdom. He was not, however, one of those who maintained that nothing was wanted. He thought that the condition of Ireland demanded the immediate attention of the Government and Parliament, as the sources of the country could be much more extensively developed than they had been up to the present time. That prosperity had increased should exist in despite of the political agitation of the country showed that there could not exist between landlord and tenant that amount of distrust and rancour that was alleged; but there undoubtedly did exist a state of law on the relations between them which gave facilities for oppression on one side, and fraud on the other, which required to be remedied by judicious legislation. He had invited their Lordships' attention last year 795 to this subject, and he still thought there could be no doubt of the fact that the law relating to the tenure of land in Ireland required much amendment. The people of Ireland had traditional notions of confiscation which it was very desirable to put an end to; and he was sorry to say that these notions had to some extent been fostered by language which had been held in Parliament. The Fenian conspiracy was based upon the proposition that there should be a re-distribution of land; but when it came out that the land was to be distributed amongst those who came to take possession of the country, many who had been deluded returned to their senses, and he believed that there was not a single man of any property who wished to see the Fenian conspiracy succeed. Upon this subject he must allude to a letter which had appeared in the newspapers with the signature "John Bright," which he hoped was not that of a Member of the other House of Parliament, for a more reprehensible document he had never read. It represented that if the Irish people were not restrained by British soldiers, they would exterminate the landed proprietary. A more untrue representation had never been made, for the landlords of Ireland were on as good terms with their people as were any other employers of labour in any part of the United Kingdom. From Mr. Bright, the Member of Parliament, a suggestion had emanated that the State should buy up large estates from owners who were absentees, and distribute them among the occupiers at fair prices. Without entering upon a detailed discussion of the subject, was it not plain that such a scheme was utterly wild and nonsensical? Was there a single principle of political economy or of any other science to recommend the proposition? Other suggestions of various kinds were not wanting, but they all favoured the taking of land out of the hands of the only persons in Ireland with means adequate for its improvement, and transferring it virtually to a new race of comparatively pauper proprietors. Was it not absurd to say that tenants who were so poorly off that they could not pay their rents, were to buy their landlords' estates? But however absurd these notions were, they had their effect in Ireland. Another proposal was, that every man in Ireland should be authorized by statute to hold his land on a sixty-three years' lease; another fixed on twenty-one years as the proper period. What the gentlemen who made 796 such suggestions would practically achieve, if successful in their views, would be a revival of the old feudal system, under which land was sought to be rendered inalienable. With regard to compensation, he had never heard any landlord, great or small, in Ireland, or any man of common sense, object to give full compensation to a tenant for all real and reasonable improvements effected by him upon the land. It was not true to say that outgoing tenants in Ireland received no compensation for their outlay, for in nine cases out of ten there was compensation, and in cases where there was none, it generally happened that the tenants were in debt for rent, and had ruined the farms. The Bill which he proposed to introduce, and by which he sought to remedy some of the defects of the existing law, contained thirty-one clauses and some schedules, and it was based upon the great principle that everything was to be done by voluntary contracts between landlord and tenant. There were bad tenants in Ireland as well as bad landlords, and no Act bearing upon the subject of compensation and tenure could abolish extortion on the one hand, or roguery on the other. The Bill which had been brought in by the late Government during the previous Session had been much praised by those who professed to be the friends of the tenants, although he must say he had some doubt about that profession; but, as a proof of the real value of the Bill, he might mention that a large meeting of tenant farmers in the county of Cork had condemned the measure as utterly worthless; while landlords universally reprobated it. Even by those who approved it, it was looked upon solely in the light of an instalment, and not by any means as a settlement of the question.
§ A Bill to simplify the Law of Tenure in Ireland—presented by The Marquess of CLANRICARDE.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 1a."—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
§ LORD MEREDYTHsaid, that he had so recently acquired a seat in their Lordships' House that he should not have ventured to address them upon the present occasion unless he had been pointedly referred to by the noble Marquess. He would remind their Lordships that the first attempt was made to settle this question twenty years ago, and yet that now they 797 were no nearer than ever to a settlement. He was therefore inclined to think that we had been proceeding on a wrong basis, attempting to do between man and man that which they ought to do for themselves, stepping in between the landlord and tenant to make a bargain which could not be settled satisfactorily by any but the parties concerned. Only one Bill had passed for regulating this question within twenty years, and that Bill had become a nullity. Having failed so often, let them try now to adopt some measure founded on sound and simple principles. Many people regarded emigration as the great curse of Ireland, but he recollected that at the time of the Irish famine, when he had the honour of holding the office of Secretary for Ireland, the greatest pressure was put upon the Government to compel them to assist emigration, which was then believed by the best friends of the Irish tenants to be the great panacea for the misery existing in that country. Emigration had been greatly increased by a law passed in 1843, rather with the intention of retarding it, which imposed upon the Irish landlords the payment of all rates on holdings under the value of £4 per annum. The result of that measure was that in many districts of Ireland, the landlords, while receiving no rent whatever, were called upon to pay heavy rates for the maintenance of their poor tenants. In what did the evils of emigration consist? Was not the position of the poorer classes of Ireland greatly improved by their emigrating to lands, where, he rejoiced to think, numbers of them were now living in comfort and in happiness? In his opinion every attempt to interfere by legislation between parties to a simple contract must end in total failure. The last Bill on this subject introduced by the late Government was not now before their Lordships, and therefore he need not enter into its details; but it contained provisions which would never have been sanctioned by their Lordships, and which would have proved detrimental and injurious to the very classes for whose benefit the Bill had been introduced. The Bill on the same subject, now before the other House, he was afraid, would disappoint those who were anxious to see this important question settled. The Bill now before their Lordships provided a simple system of voluntary contracts between landlord and tenant, and to codify and simplify the whole of this branch of the law. He believed that if the Bill were 798 passed it would confer a great and lasting benefit upon the people of Ireland, and therefore he trusted that their Lordships would permit it to be read a first time.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, his noble Friend who had just addressed their Lordships (Lord Meredyth) had spoken on this subject with that authority which attached to one who was himself an Irish landlord, and who had great experience in the conduct of Irish affairs, having held for a considerable time the post of Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. His noble Friend had alluded to the measure brought in by the Government last year in terms so condemnatory that, although not inclined to trouble their Lordships by discussing the details of a measure not now before Parliament, he hoped to be excused if he made a few remarks on the question. His noble Friend who introduced the subject (the Marquess of Clanricarde) began by stating that he entirely admitted it was desirable there should be some distinct provision made, by which a tenant who had improved his land should recover compensation for unexhausted improvements. He apprehended that principle was so generally admitted, both in and out of Parliament, that it had become almost a necessity to endeavour to devise some measure by which that justice might be secured to the tenant. His noble Friend behind him (Lord Meredyth) very naturally, dispirited at the want of success which had attended so many attempts, and despairing of effectually dealing with the subject, fell back on a measure which he himself had pro-pared to facilitate contracts between landlord and tenant. Now he (the Earl of Kimberley) did not so entirely despair of success; and he was glad to see that the Government had endeavoured to produce a measure which might satisfy the just desire of tenants for more satisfactory relations with their landlords. He should be the last person, knowing the great difficulties of the question, to endeavour to prejudice their Lordships against any measure introduced by any one, and no doubt the measure of the Government, if it reached that House, would deserve careful and considerate discussion; but before he said anything on that Bill he would say a word or two in regard to the measure of last year. It was assumed that that measure was a violent interference with the rights of ownership; that it gave the tenant a share in the ownership of the land—the noble Lord said it almost 799 confiscated part of the land and transferred it to the tenant. He entirely denied that this was a just description of the measure. In no sense of the word was it an interference with the rights of the owner—if it had done so he would not have had anything to do with it. Although that Bill endeavoured to procure for the tenant compensation for improvements—although it endeavoured to establish a presumption of law different from that which now existed—namely, that in future the law should presume that the tenant had a right to compensation for improvements unless the owner could establish the contrary—still it allowed the landlord to prevent any claim by restraining the tenant from making any particular improvement. The clause in the Bill was found fault with because it was not sufficiently explicit; but the intention of the framers was that this provision would enable the landlord to restrain his tenant from making any specific improvements against his wishes, and if he refused his assent the tenant would not acquire under the Bill a right to compensation. That was clearly a very necessary provision; for instance, there might be a claim for such an improvement as building a house, which might involve a very great hardship, the land not being fit for such a purpose. The Bill distinctly reserved the fundamental right of the owner to deal with his own land; but it gave the tenant the right which he had in equity to obtain compensation for improvements, unless there was a contract to the contrary. This was the usual practice of prescription as recognised by the law. There was nothing unjust or unfair, no invasion of the right of ownership in it. No doubt there were details in the measure which would have required careful consideration, and probably would have received considerable amendment. But if they fell back on such a measure as that introduced by the noble Marquess, merely for facilitating contracts between landlords and tenants, it would not, he feared, give satisfaction to the tenantry of Ireland. He admitted that the relations between landlord and tenant were improved, that agrarian crime had remarkably diminished, and that agricultural prosperity had advanced in Ireland, attributable to a variety of circumstances; but that was the very time when they ought to legislate upon this subject, instead of waiting till compulsion was put upon them, and they had to legislate during a 800 crisis. This was a moment when tenants might be ready to lay out considerable sums in improvements, and to encourage them it was necessary to give them, in case they should be called upon to leave their farms, the assurance of a right to compensation for unexhausted improvements. As regarded the measure introduced by the Government, though he would not discuss its various provisions, as it was not yet before them, he could not help expressing a doubt respecting a measure which threatened to have the effect of placing all the small tenants in Ireland in something like a position of dependence upon the Treasury of the United Kingdom. He did not object to the principle of giving Imperial assistance further, if that assistance were accompanied by safeguards as to the application of the advances. That might be a mode of settling the question; but he doubted whether it would be safe or convenient to make advances to tenants. He would rather look to the owners themselves, as being able to afford a better security for re-payment. He did not wish now to express any decided opinion on the measure of the Government, which ought to be fully discussed, and he hoped that if the Bill reached their Lordships it would be discussed in a calm and temperate spirit. The present discussion would not be without value if it gave an assurance that any measure honestly brought forward would meet with a favourable reception at their Lordships' hands.
LORD DUNSANYfeared that, between the expectations of Irish tenants as to what legislation would be on this subject, and any measure likely to pass this House, there was as great a difference as between a hungry man's dream and another man's dinner. The sort of legislative enactment which was spoken of in Parliament would in Ireland be regarded as of no value at all, and if the effect of the present discussion should be to dispel the delusions of the Irish peasantry on this subject, the discussion would have proved beneficial. He trusted that the noble Earl at the head of the Government would make an authoritative declaration to the effect that, anxious as Parliament might be to pass some satisfactory measure, no enactment was likely to be adopted bearing the smallest resemblance to that which the agricultural classes in Ireland were taught to look for from the propounders of revolutionary doctrines. If the effect of this discussion 801 should be to open the eyes of the agricultural classes in Ireland to the difference between the legislation which might pass and the wild notions which they entertained, it would have been very useful. The legislation to which those classes looked forward was revolutionary, and resembled an agrarian law, and if carried out in Ireland could not be refused in England and Scotland. He had a pamphlet in his hand written by a lawyer—not an obscure, briefless barrister, but a Queen's Counsel, and one who had been a Member of the other House of Parliament (Mr. Isaac Butt). In that pamphlet it was observed that if the Irish people resolved to declare their determination to have fixity of tenure for the occupiers of the soil, three years would not pass before a measure for that purpose would become law. The pamphlet was accompanied by the draft of a Bill. The preamble stated that it was desirable to convert short and uncertain tenures into long tenures for terms of years. No doubt it was. It might be desirable when you had taken your house for six months to convert your tenure into one for sixty-three years, or when you had borrowed a horse to retain it for the term of its natural life. The draft Bill, moreover, went on to settle the rent to be paid which was to be on the principle of the Poor Law valuation. Such was the way in which it was proposed to deal with property in Ireland. Under these circumstances, he trusted that their Lordships would hear from the noble Earl at the head of the Government, who was himself a large Irish proprietor, an authoritative declaration that no such revolutionary proposal as this was what was meant by the term the settlement of the relations between landlord and tenant. It was a delusion to suppose that the tenants of Ireland were ardent improvers and the landlords were obstructives. In his neighbourhood nearly all the improvements were made by the landlords and the tenants were so ignorant of the advantage of drains as to laugh at their construction as the folly of rich men. There were, of course, improving tenants, but these were exceptions, and legislation based on the assumption that the tenants were the invariable improvers would be a great mistake.
EARL GREYsaid, he hoped his noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (the Earl of Kimberley) would excuse him if he ventured to say that, had he wanted an argument for the principle laid down by 802 the noble Marquess who had introduced the Bill, and so well supported by his noble Friend behind him (Lord Meredyth), the speech of his noble Friend would have supplied him with one than which nothing could be more to the purpose. His noble Friend had endeavoured to defend the Bill of the late Government from the charge that it was an invasion of the landlord's rights; but he had only attempted to rebut that charge by showing that the rights which were conferred by it on the tenants were accompanied by safeguards for the landlords, which, in his opinion, must have tended to embroil the landlord and the tenant, and to make the relations between these classes worse than ever. By the Bill of last year the late Government proposed to legislate upon the principle of giving a claim for unexhausted improvements made by the tenant without any agreement with his landlord. If that principle was to be made applicable to everything which might be called improvements, one could easily see what extreme injustice might be done to the landlord. Things might be improvements for the actual tenant, and yet be a positive injury to the land if it were brought into the market. Thus, if there were small farms of ten acres, a cabin on each of them would perhaps be an improvement for the occupying tenants, but it would be a serious injury to the laud at the expiration of such a tenancy. Then, if they guarded the landlord by giving him a veto on the improvements of the tenant, they raised questions between the two parties as to what should and what should not be regarded as an improvement. These questions of compensation generally arose many years after the improvements were made, and when, perhaps, one or both of the parties to the original letting were dead. He believed that by legislating on the principle of the Bill of last year they would create still greater difficulties than those which unhappily prevailed at present in connection with the tenure of land in Ireland. There was another principle which if he correctly understood the Bill now proposed by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was that which he adopted, and it was simply this—to afford every possible facility to landlords and tenants to make their own bargains between themselves, and to establish the practice that their agreements should be in writing, the terms to be plainly expressed, so that there should be no disputes thereafter, He believed that to be the best and simplest plan which could 803 be adopted. In his opinion the system which was desirable was not that the tenants should have a claim for unexhausted improvements, but that they should have leases for such terms as would enable them to get the value of their improvements in the shape of occupation. The larger improvements, such as drainage, should be made by the landlord. The smaller improvements should be made by the tenants, on lease for a sufficient number of years. That system was well known in the North of England, and also in Scotland, where, under leases of nineteen and twenty-one years, the Lothians and both banks of the Tweed had been doubled and trebled in their productive power, and he had no doubt whatever that the introduction of such a system into Ireland would conduce to the greatest amount of good. He objected, however, to claims for compensation on an undefined agreement based upon an Act of Parliament, when such claims might be made perhaps thirty or forty years after the improvements had been effected.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he quite agreed with what had been said by his noble Friend who had just sat down (Earl Grey), that the object of the law ought to be to encourage the granting of leases; but we know as a matter of fact that such was not the state of things in Ireland. Like his noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant, he thought that the Bill brought in last year might have required amendment in its details, but it was based upon a sound principle, because, in changing the presumption of law, it would have put a stress and strain on the landlords to come to written agreements with their tenants. To do that was, he believed, perfectly consistent with a due regard to the rights of property. In the West of Scotland much good had resulted from the introduction of written agreements, and he thought that the same thing would follow from their adoption in Ireland. He was not in favour of giving any artificial encouragement to the letting of land in very small farms. He hoped that whenever this question came on for discussion in their Lordships' House it would be dealt with without any party feeling. He trusted that it would be considered with the view of doing what was best for the improvement of the tenantry of Ireland, and for placing on a more satisfactory footing the relations between landlord and tenant in that country, without any political feeling whatever.
VISCOUNT LIFFORDprotested against any attempt to apply to Ireland principles which were not applied to England and Scotland. The Bill of the late Government would have had the effect of enabling tenants to make improvements in defiance of their landlords, and this principle was not to be defended.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the words in the 29th clause of the Bill of last year might not have been sufficiently explicit, but the intention had been that if the landlord expressly declared that the tenant should not build a house, the tenant, if he did build, should not be entitled to compensation.
VISCOUNT LIFFORDreplied that such might have been the intention, but it certainly was not the reading of the clause.
§ Motion agreed to: Bill read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 23.)