§ Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
§ THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that, at a moment of such gravity as the present, both to Ireland and to the Empire, there seemed to him to be special reasons for proceeding with this measure, which had already received so much time and attention from a Select Committee. He thought that, in the first place, he ought to explain to their Lordships very briefly what was the history of legislation on this subject. As their Lordships were, perhaps, aware, 1158 previous to 1848—which he regarded as a starting point in the rural economy of Ireland—up to 1860 the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland were regulated by the Common Law of the land; that Common Law, however, being overlaid and modified by a large number of statutes, some of which dealt with very minute particulars, and the great part of which had since been repealed. In 1847, a great change in the proprietorship of land was introduced by the operation of the Incumbered Estates Act. That measure, which had undoubtedly conferred a great benefit on Ireland, had been made necessary by the dreadful results of the famine, in order to resuscitate the cultivation of the soil in the rural districts. He had recently seen in the newspapers some controversy as to who was the originator of that Act. Now he did not know what interviews or correspondence there might have been at the time between eminent persons, but having been at that time a Member of Lord Russell's Government, he had always believed—and he thought none of his former Colleagues would contradict the statement—that the gratitude of Ireland was to the noble and learned Lord who now presided over the Bolls' Court (Lord Romilly) for having dealt with that important subject in so able a manner. But the Act brought about even a greater change in the occupancy than in the proprietorship of the land; and though the expectation that a large amount of English and Scotch capital would flow into the country was, to some extent, disappointed, on the other hand, a quantity of Irish capital that had not been known to exist was brought into circulation, and partly owing to the operation of the Act, and partly to emigration and other causes, Ireland recovered from the effects of the famine with wonderful rapidity. The evils arising from the existing law as regarded landlord and tenant were, however, immediately felt, and the then Chief Secretary, in conjunction with Mr. Tighe Hamilton, framed a measure on the subject; but no Act passed, until 1860, when Mr. Cardwell, in conjunction with Mr. Baron Deasy, then Attorney General for Ireland, brought forward two Bills, one for regulating compensation to tenants for improvements, and the other establishing the law which was now in force with regard to the tenure 1159 of land. As to the former measure, it was needless to say anything, for it had proved a dead letter; and the other Bill had not worked so successfully as was anticipated. It was mainly based on the principle which was the foundation of the present Bill; for, instead of the Common Law, derived from feudal tenure and service, it enacted that the tenure of land should rest on contract. But, unfortunately, that principle was not properly carried out, and some of its provisions were very inadequate. In consequence of this failure he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had the honour of introducing the present Bill in the House of Lords, in 1866. The necessity for further legislation had been pointedly urged by Lord Justice Christian, Chief Justice Lefroy, and the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland—the great fault of Mr. Cardwell's Act being that it not only did not prevent, but actually recognized, verbal agreements, and this had given rise to a great deal of litigation. In his own Bill he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) avoided that fault, and had made everything depend on written contract. Their Lordships were good enough, to give it a second reading; but the lateness of the Session not allowing it to proceed further, he re-introduced it in 1867, when it was referred to a Select Committee very judiciously chosen; for, though several of its Members were, as Irish landlords, personally interested in the matter, its leading Members displayed an ability, attention, and impartiality worthy of all praise. The Committee enjoyed the advantage of being able to refer to the evidence taken by Mr. Maguire's Committee in the other House; and the advocates of what was called tenant-right were invited to offer suggestions, those suggestions being examined with great courtesy, but yet with great acuteness. The result was that none of the witnesses could show that their proposals, when fully worked out, would be so beneficial to tenants as the Bill, the only objection offered to which had been that it did not go far enough. Last Session the Committee resumed their sittings, and came to the conclusion that the measure was one which ought to become law. A very able digest of it was prepared by the noble Earl on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey); but as there were particular points in this on which some difference of opinion pre- 1160 vailed, it was thought better to adopt a much shorter Report, on which general unanimity existed. This being the history of the present Bill, it was unnecessary for him to go through its provisions at length; it would be sufficient that he should impress on their Lordships the two principal points contained in it. The main principle and foundation of the Bill was the introduction into all arrangements between landlord and tenant of written contracts; and, for this purpose, it provided that, after the 1st January, 1871, all new parole contracts as to the holding and improvement of land should be void. The Bill then defined the contracting powers of landlords, and in the case of limited estates, to some degree, extended those powers. The Bill next provided a form of lease—to which other conditions might be added at the will of the parties—the lease being always subject to certain statutable reservations and obligations; and, as it was not necessary that these should be set out in the lease, and a simple and effective mode of procedure was provided, it was hoped that each party, without difficulty and little cost, might enforce the performance of the contract. The next and most important point contained in the Bill related to the vexed question of compensation to the tenant for unexhausted improvements. In the first place, the Bill provided a simple form of contract, for cases in which the tenant was bound to make improvements, with provisions in case of the determination of the tenancy before the expiration of the compensation period. In the same way a form of agreement was provided for those cases in which the landlord contracted to make the improvements, which agreement would likewise be subject to certain statutable conditions; and, in the case of the landlord having a limited estate, he was empowered to recover from his successor a proportionate share of the sums expended. The nature of the improvements which the landlord was empowered to contract to make, so as to bind his successor, were defined, and also the method of ascertaining the extent of his rights. By Part VIII. of the Bill a great alteration was made in the power of the land-land to recover his rent, for by the 26th section the power of the landlord himself to distrain the property of his tenant was taken away, and hereafter the dis- 1161 tress could only be made by the sheriff and his bailiffs, after affidavit made by the landlord. By interposing this officer, the right of recovering rent by distress would be made less harassing and less liable to abuse than under the existing law. As the basis of the system proposed by his Bill was contract in writing, so it was provided that no contract should be valid to enforce rights unless it was duly registered; for which purpose a registry book was to be provided by the clerk of the peace for each county. There were many minor matters of detail with which he need not trouble their Lordships. They had been carefully considered to meet cases which might arise. On the whole he believed the Bill had been carefully constructed so as to secure the due rights and interests of both landlords and tenants, and would give satisfaction to the moderate and thinking part of the population of Ireland, and if carried out could work no injustice between man and man. Two objections might, perhaps, be preferred against proceeding with the measure—first, that the attention of Parliament was fully occupied with other matters, and that there would not be sufficient time to consider the matter properly this Session; and secondly, that, in the present lamentable state of Ireland, the time was inopportune for dealing with so grave a question. He hoped, however, that neither the House nor the Government would attach much weight to these pleas. Considering the period at which they took Office, and the important measure to which they had chiefly devoted their attention, nobody could blame the Government for not having introduced a Land Bill of their own this Session; but Parliament had still three clear months before it, and, in view of the progress which the Irish Church Bill was making in the other House, there was every prospect that their Lordships would, in a few weeks, be called on to give their decision upon it. There would therefore be plenty of time—if the Government were inclined to take up this Bill—to consider it in the other House. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would be disposed to accept this Bill and to expedite its passage to the other House, or that, at any rate, they would express such an opinion upon it as would show their determination to give no countenance to the visionary 1162 projects which were producing such terrible mischief in Ireland. It would not, indeed, satisfy, nor was it intended to satisfy, the absurd theories which were being disseminated by the National Association and other bodies, and which were misleading many men whose education and abilities ought to have protected them against such delusions. The proposition which seemed to have found most favour was the entire abolition of property in fee in the soil, or what was called "landlordism;" and it was apparently believed by the National Association that the Government would actually listen to a scheme of leases in perpetuity, under what would be called in this country a corn rent, fixed by the price of corn and cattle, tenants being under no other restriction than the obligation of paying rent. Language, unfortunately, had been used during the last two years, by men who ought to have known the danger of such language, which had had a very lamentable effect. He had no intention of quoting the letters or speeches to which he alluded; but this language had brought matters to such a crisis that it was absolutely necessary that, the Government should clearly state what principles they would adopt and would stand by in dealing with the land question, and whether they would lend the slightest countenance to these visionary and mischievous views. It had been stated that, in order to ameliorate the condition of Ireland, the Government would deal with the ecclesiastical arrangements, with the land question, and with education. Now, he would remind their Lordships that the education of the people did not depend merely on "the three R's," but on the inculcation, both by precept and example, of that respect for life and property which was the very foundation of civilized society, and without which neither the peasant nor the landlord, neither the rich nor the poor, could enjoy any comfort or prosperity. Unhappily, however, this great principle was not recognized by the Irish people, and in one of the reports or resolutions which the National Society was circulating throughout the country it was distinctly stated that the people were being educated in hostility to landlordism—a doctrine which was nothing less than confiscation, though confiscation had in times past been the bane of Ireland. He had been sorry, too, to see it 1163 laid down by men of high position that the religion of a proprietor of land was a grievance to the rest of the population. Men who styled themselves Free Traders had actually propounded the notion that because a landlord was a Protestant his property should be less secure than that of a Roman Catholic; yet he believed that, in general, tenants, when they interested themselves in a landlord's religion at all, preferred a Protestant. No one felt more keenly than himself the shame which was brought on the country, and the wrong which was done by the abuse of the rights of property, and he only wished he could see his way clear to preventing that abuse by statute. He wished, however, that public opinion should be brought to bear on the matter, in order that no owner of property of whatever kind might use his power so as to wrong any man, however humble. All that could be done by legislation was to facilitate and enforce contracts; and he would appeal to the Government to accept this Bill, or in some other way show their determination to maintain the law of the land with regard to property, so as to check the extravagant opinions which at present prevailed.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª"—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
§ EARL GRANVILLEThe noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde), being an Irish Member of the House, and being interested therefore in the condition of Ireland, and having, more ever, paid particular attention to this most vexed and difficult subject, need not, I am sure, have offered any apology for re-introducing this measure, which he has already succeeded in passing through a Select Committee, described by him in glowing, but I believe not undeserved terms—though I hope that description applies to most Committees of your Lordships' House entrusted with the consideration of important questions. I am bound to admit that he has discharged his task in a most calm and temperate manner, and in a very courteous manner as regards Her Majesty's Government. I feel that it is I who ought rather to apologize for rising to speak on this matter when there are noble Friends, by me who were members of that Committee, and who possess a personal acquaintance with Ireland to which I can make no pretension. They have, however, thought 1164 it well that I should state at the very outset of the debate the course which the Government deem it best to pursue with regard to the noble Marquess's Bill. I readily admit that—unanimously recommended by the Committee, with the proviso to which the noble Marquess referred, that in the opinion in some it does not go far enough—it contains many most valuable provisions with regard to written contracts to enable limited owners to deal with compensation for improvements, to restrictions on eviction so as to prevent cases of hardship, and to the machinery for enforcing the rights of tenants, not to mention other points of detail, which are great improvements on the present law. What, however, most of your Lordships will, I think, feel is that this Bill, though in fact a re-construction of the law of tenure, is not sufficient to settle what is popularly called the land question of Ireland; and the noble Marquess has himself said he was quite aware it would not satisfy those visionary persons who expect that all the laws of property should be set aside for their benefit. I quite concur with him in that opinion, and I trust that no such law can possibly pass the Legislature of this country. But it is also clear that more moderate persons, who deplore the present condition of the relations of landlord and tenant—a condition partly the fault of the landlord, partly the fault of the tenant, and still more, I believe, the heavy hand with which for many years the Government and legislation weighed so unjustly upon upon that country—will not regard this measure as sufficient finally to settle the question and to produce that contentment among moderate persons in Ireland which the noble Marquess hopes and anticipates. That feeling, I imagine, existed also in the Committee, and I am not sure that even my noble Friend on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey) believes that the Bill would be a permanent settlement of the question. What my noble Friend argued, in his draft Report with so much ability was that it would have a beneficial effect. The cry a good many years ago was "The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill;" but I do not think that was the feeling of the Committee—especially when we bear in mind past attempts at legislation on the subject. The noble Marquess gave a sketch of those attempts, but with some omissions. I believe that after the passing 1165 of the great Reform Act Mr. Sharman Crawford introduced a number of Bills on the subject, and that one of them led to the appointment of the Devon Commission. It is a melancholy reflection that the evils pointed out by that Commission still to a great extent exist, and in some degree are even intensified, and that no remedy has yet been applied to them. Lord Derby, I think, who is not now present, introduced a Bill; and I believe my noble Friend (Lord Athlumney), then Sir William Somerville, introduced a Bill, and a few years afterwards a group of Bills; all those measures recognizing the principle that compensation should be given to tenants for permanent improvements made without the assent of the landlord. Then a Bill was introduced by Sir Joseph Napier as a Member of Lord Derby's Government; next came the Bill of Mr. Chichester Fortescue, in 1866; and, in 1867 the Bill of Lord Mayo, and the one introduced by the noble Marquess himself. Mr. Cardwell's Bill, owing to defects in its machinery, proved to some extent inoperate; but it laid down the principle that the tenure of land should depend on contract, and it also permitted compensation for permanent improvements under certain circumstances. Mr. Chichester Fortescue's Bill went on the principle of reversing the presumption of law that, in the absence of an agreement, tenants have no right to compensation for improvements, inasmuch as it provided that, in the absence of any written agreement, the landlord should be liable to re-pay the tenant for permanent improvements. With regard to the two Bills introduced by Conservative Governments, it happened in this case, as in other cases, that, from the force of circumstances, the measures of the Conservative Government were less Conservative in their character than those to which I have already alluded. Sir Joseph Napier's Bill went, I think, to this extent—that it gave retrospective compensation for permanent improvements, and it enacted compensation for improvements made against the wish of the landlord. Lord Mayo's Bill provided loans to tenants, and gave compensation in some cases to tenants for improvements made contrary to the wish of the landlord. Now, I only refer to these various Bills for the purpose of showing that, when successive Governments of opposite politics have under- 1166 taken to frame a measure, they have all thought it necessary to go further than this Bill of the noble Marquess. Her Majesty's Government yield to no body of men in their ardent wish to see this serious and complicated question settled. They believe that without a satisfactory settlement of this question it is utterly impossible for Ireland to become a happy prosperous, and contented country. There cannot be the smallest doubt upon the point that the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland are in a most unsatisfactory state. There is no question, I imagine, that questions of religion and questions connected with the tenure of land are almost the sole political causes of irritation and dissatisfaction existing in the minds of the people of Ireland. I do not mean to say a word with regard to the former; but it is an historical fact that the Irish Church question was the immediate cause of the dissolution of the late Parliament, and was the one great question which had to be decided by the constituencies. In consequence of that decision the late Government resigned and the present Government came into Office, pledged as strongly as I can conceive any Government to be to deal with that question and to try to bring it to a successful issue. Now, I think there is nothing so discreditable to a Government, or more calculated to mar the progress of any great political measure, than that a Government should undertake to deal with the subject at a time when there is no reasonable likelihood that it will be able to carry the measure they have in view into successful operation. It is only, therefore, after the most careful consideration of the whole question, and of the time the Irish Church Bill will probably occupy—considering the period of the Session at which we have already arrived, and the probable time left to us for legislation,—and I am not so well informed as the noble Marquess as to be able to calculate on the Session lasting three clear months longer—that the Government feel that they could not with due seriousness and earnestness undertake to deal with this great and important question, in addition to the Irish Church Bill and the other important English and Scotch measures which were recommended to both Houses of Parliament in Her Majesty's Speech. For this reason alone Her Majesty's 1167 Government do not at once grapple with the question; and I can assure the noble Marquess that the second objection which he anticipated—that the state of Ireland forbids the attempting to deal with it—is one which they do not put forward in the slightest degree. If we had time, the Government would be quite prepared to deal with the subject at the present moment. Although, moreover, the provisions of Lord Mayo's Bill and of Mr. Fortescue's have been received in a very different spirit in different quarters, having been praised by some and blamed by others, and although the Government do not pledge themselves in any way as to any particular details contained in those Bills, they think there are many propositions in them, and in the Bill now proposed by the noble Marquess, which might form materials with which a measure satisfactory to moderate men of both parties might be framed. They feel, however, that they cannot undertake to deal piecemeal with this question; and, therefore, though I should not think of voting against the second reading or any subsequent stage of this Bill, I think it is for the noble Marquess in particular, and for your Lordships in general, to consider whether it would really further the object in view to send the Bill down to the House of Commons, when, for the reason I have stated, it is impossible for the Government to give proper attention to it. One suggestion I would also throw out. We have had a good deal of discussion lately with respect to our not having a sufficient number of Bills originated in this House. Now, it has been generally admitted—and by none more freely than by Lord Derby—that although that complaint is not without foundation, there are many Bills which are more likely to be satisfactory to the public if they are originated in the House of Commons; and I cannot help thinking that a Bill introduced by any one Member of this House—himself an Irish landlord and a member of a class almost exclusively represented in this House—would not, even though it were exactly the same as one passed by the House of Commons, be so likely to receive favour in the hands of moderate men of both sides as if it had originated in the House of Commons. I have not gone into the details of the Bill, but I thought your Lordships would wish for 1168 as straightforward a statement as I could give of the conclusions come to by the Government on this subject.
EARL GREYMy Lords, I must express my dissatisfaction with the statement made by my noble Friend the noble Earl who represents the Government in this House. I cannot but think that, upon a subject of such extreme gravity and importance, Her Majesty's Government were not entitled to adopt the line they have done. This Bill ought to pass, or it ought not. If it ought not, it was the bounden duty of the Government in the position in which they hold, and with the authority which it is their province to exercise, to advise your Lordships to reject it, and to move in the ordinary way that it be rejected; but, shrinking from that course, and throwing on my noble Friend the responsibility of passing the Bill, the noble Earl has, this evening, taken a line which I believe was never before taken by a Minister of the Crown in this House. The noble Earl says—"I disapprove the Bill being passed: I think you are going to act imprudently, and in a manner injurious probably to the object in view, if you press it; but I will not oppose it: I will allow it to go through this and subsequent stages, and leave it to your Lordships to decide the matter." Now, that, I say, is a course utterly undignified and utterly unfitting for one having the high honour of being a Servant of Her Majesty in this House. It is a course, also, which places those who think, as I do, that the passing of a measure on this subject is of the deepest importance to the public welfare and the public safety in a most difficult situation. We have not been told why we ought not to vote for this Bill—we are not given a single reason for its rejection or any explanation of the principles of legislation which Her Majesty's Government propose to adopt—yet, at the same time, we are advised not to pass it. I confess I feel myself very unequal to the responsibility of so large a question which is put before me in such an unexpected shape. It never occurred to me that I should be called on to take part in a discussion of this kind. I thought it possible, when I came down to the House, that objections might be taken to the Bill, and I should have been prepared to meet them. I thought it possible, on the other hand, that the Go- 1169 vernment would consent to the second reading of the Bill, but on the understanding that it should be amended in Committee; and that, also, would have been a perfectly simple case. But I certainly never expected to hear from the noble Earl, respecting a Bill of such importance—a statement that has left us in this position. I will endeavour, however, to state some reasons which induce me to think that a Bill of this kind ought to pass. In the first place, I think it is impossible for any man to look at what is going on in Ireland, and to doubt that the present state of the relations between landlord and tenant is doing extreme mischief. It is not merely the fact that agrarian outrages have broken out with such increased violence during the last few months; it is not merely that the agitation upon this subject has greatly increased, but it is the fact that men's minds are getting more and more turned to the belief that some measure is ultimately to pass inconsistent with those ordinary rules with regard to the sanctity of property which hitherto have been respected by the Legislature. This impression is gradually gaining more and. more hold of the minds of the people of Ireland. Under such circumstances every delay on the part of the Government to deal with the question—every day you allow the evil to take root—the greater will be the difficulty of solving it when the attempt is made to do so. Now, the law, as it exists, is universally admitted to be bad. In the Committee of this, and also of the other House of Parliament, I believe there was not a single witness examined who did not concur in condemning the present state of the law effecting the tenure of land. It was admitted to be so uncertain that even able and practised lawyers were often in doubt as to what was the real effect of the law on various important points. It was admitted that it practically discouraged the granting of leases or even of written agreements respecting the occupation of land, both from the excessive expense which attended such agreements, and by the difficulty also of enforcing them, so that landlords were loth to give leases; and we had the statement of most experienced land agents that the existing state of the law, and the uncertainty of what Parliament might do hereafter, made men hesitate to advise landlords to grant 1170 leases to their tenants. It is universally admitted—wide as are the differences of opinion on other points, on this at least, there is a general agreement—that nothing is more desirable, even if you do not compel the granting of leases in Ireland, than to afford every encouragement to landlords to make arrangements of that kind with their tenants, so as to place the relations between the two parties on the most certain possible footing. But the state of the existing law and the uncertainty as to what will be the law hereafter have the effect now of making the grant of leases, or even written agreements, more and more rare. What is the result? The more fact that that there is an absence of written agreements with respect to the disposal of land is at the root of half the evils and difficulties with which you now have to contend in Ireland. Your Lordships are all aware that, in dealing with land, the lapse of a considerable number of years before agreements that are made can be fulfilled must be reckoned upon; these transactions, from their very nature, extend over long periods of time; and, if an agreement respecting land is a mere verbal one, even should the parties who make it both survive, at the end of ten, twenty, or thirty years, it is very natural that there should be some difference of opinion between the parties as to what was really agreed upon if there is no written or authentic record of it. Of course, during this long period, it is very often not those who have made the agreement, but their successors, who have to decide upon the mode of carrying it out. In the natural course of things landlord and tenant die and their successors find that what each has a right to claim from the other depends upon an agreement to which they were not originally parties, and the real effect of which they only know vaguely and by hearsay. What is the consequence? Each party very often honestly believes that the agreement was one more favourable to himself than the other party is prepared to admit; and thus arise differences of opinion and doubts as to what was really agreed upon which have very often caused the worst outrages. There is one case which, without mentioning the names of the parties, I may cite to your Lordships, because it forcibly illustrates my meaning. A great many years ago there was a gentleman who owned 1171 a large tract of waste land in Ireland. He took an interest in the reclamation of this waste; he had improved much of the land himself, and had encouraged his tenants to do a great deal more. He let a quantity of land of this description, which in its then state was utterly worthless, to a number of tenants on an agreement, as was afterwards alleged, that for a certain number of years they should pay only a nominal rent, but that, after the expiration of that term, a higher rent should be required; that rent was to be gradually increased, and was to represent ultimately the fair value of the lands; and, on the other hand, the tenants who were to reclaim this land were to be allowed facilities for getting lime and other things for the purposes of these improvements. The improvements were carried out successfully. A great deal of land, from being utterly worthless, was made fertile and productive. But, after some years, the gentleman by whom the arrangement was made was dead; I believe a great many of his tenants were dead also; and the time came when the new owner of the property asked to have an increased rent from the occupiers of the land. They, on their part, said that the increased value of the land was entirely due to their labour; they declined to pay a higher rent, and there was also disputes with regard to the terms on which they were to have lime. I do not know which of these parties was in the right. I think it is highly probable that the gentleman who let the land in this manner had contemplated that he should ultimately have an increased rent in consideration of letting the land for a considerable number of years at a low rent. That is highly probable; but the reverse may have happened. It is a question on which a difference of opinion was very natural. But, unhappily, there being no record, no formal agreement, and no lease, and the land being held from year to year under the owner, the new owner had the complete power of enforcing his own view of the case, without regard to what might be the feelings of the tenants. The law was clearly on his side. He could compel the tenants—either to give up the land or to pay the rent which he demanded; and I presume, supposing himself to be right he determined on enforcing his rights. The result of these 1172 proceedings was that in a short time after he was barbarously murdered. I have been told by an experienced land agent in Ireland that this was one very notorious case which arose entirely from a misunderstanding between the parties as to their rights; but that this is only one out of the multitude of such cases. Almost the majority of these outrages arise from differences of opinion between the occupier on the one side and the owner on the other as to what is just to each. And your Lordships will observe that, though there may be an honest difference of opinion, and though in a majority of cases both parties believe themselves to be in the right, yet the law, which leaves the rights and claims of both parties thus uncertain and undefined, does enable bad men, whether landlords or tenants, to be guilty of great injustice and great crime. Suppose that, in the case I have mentioned, the person who had allowed these improvements had really agreed that the tenants who undertook them should enjoy, for a much longer time than they actually did, the full benefit of their labour, there was still nothing to prevent him from being guilty of grievous oppression by insisting on resuming possession of the land, or on higher rents, before his tenants would have recovered the cost of the improvements they had made; and, though these cases of oppression are undoubtedly rare, I am afraid it is impossible to doubt that such cases do occur, that oppression is, in some instances, deliberately committed, and that these cases are sufficiently numerous to create among the tenantry of Ireland a general sense of insecurity and wrong. Now one defect in the existing law is that it does practically prevent written agreements between the parties. It also, as I have said, leads to cases of injustice and oppression. But, further, it embitters the relations between landlord and tenant in this manner—it provides no cheap, simple, and easy mode by which disputes may be settled, and the performance of agreements enforced. Landlords are now very much discouraged from granting leases by the fact that, if they do so, they have not any easy means of enforcing them. And, as these faults exist in the present law, and oppression occurs under it, those who are agitating this question from mischievous motives enjoy an advantage 1173 which they ought not to possess in exciting hostile feelings among the occupiers of land. As I have said, there is a real grievance. People feel it deeply, and feel it every hour of their lives; but it is difficult for them on a question of this kind to understand what the real remedy is, and therefore they are easily deluded by those who come to them and tell them—"You are now liable to oppression and wrong. Support the measures we propose and you will be saved from all this injustice." This is the result of allowing a grievance of this kind to exist without taking some means of redressing it—those who suffer are induced to adopt the views and become the ready instruments of agitators who endeavour to excite them. There are two special objects which these agitators endeavour to bring before the minds of the peasantry—fixity of tenure and compensation for improvements. Now, fixity of tenure means nothing more nor less than transferring to others a large part of the property which now belongs to the landlords. It is, in fact, confiscation. But, besides that, no man, I think, can have read the evidence given before the Committees of both Houses of Parliament without coming to the conclusion that any provision such as this must tend to the injury of those very persons on whose behalf it is desired. We know from past experience how little advantage is derived from land being held in small allotments on long leases in Ireland, and how little it is usually improved by such tenants. We know, moreover, that the tendency is to divide and sublet land which is held for long periods until it is reduced into small allotments, utterly incapable of supporting in any tolerable comfort those who hold them, so that, through such subdivision, they are exposed in bad seasons to certain famine and starvation. We know that that is the tendency; but we know also that what is called fixity of tenure will give the small tenants in Ireland uncontrolled dominion over property, and would operate with extreme hardship on those below them—for there is a labourer's as well as an occupier's question to be considered in dealing with this subject. Every man does not hold land; and if you give the present tenants positive and permanent security of tenure all those who do not now hold land will be left 1174 entirely without the means of obtaining it, and without any means of redress or subsistence whatever, and the labourers who look to the larger proprietors for support and assistance will thus be placed in a much worse position. The evidence is quite conclusive which goes to show that labourers who are in the worst condition in Ireland are those who live on the small properties; nor is it difficult to see why that should be the case. But there is another notion, which is that compensation ought to be given to the tenant for improvements. That is undoubtedly a very popular notion. We are all in favour of giving compensation to those who, at their own expense, have improved the land which they hold; but then the question is in what manner that compensation is to be given? My noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has told us that various Bills have been brought foward by successive Governments, all disposed to admit this principle that, under certain circumstances, compulsory compensation should be provided for the tenant. I grant that this has been the case; nor do I wish now to question the motives which led to the measures giving compulsory compensation being introduced. I think, however, I am warranted in saying that these measures when brought forward have invariably been found not to stand the test of even comparatively careless criticism. It has been found in the case of all of them, when closely examined, that the effect of giving compensation in the manner which they proposed, must lead to far more injustice than practically arises under the existing law. You say the landlord is to give compensation to his tenant for improvements. That is very fair; but upon what is the claim of the tenant to be founded? It must be for improvement in the value of the land which he occupies. Now in many cases, the works called improvements, for which compensation is claimed, are not improvements in the land at all. One of the most ordinary improvements for which compensation is claimed is a house which may be built on a farm far too small to support it. Is that an improvement which can be looked upon as advantageous to the landlord? Very much the reverse. It is, on the contrary, a deterioration to his property: it increases the difficulties in the way of gradually consolida- 1175 ting the property, so that those who occupy will have a chance of obtaining a reasonable living; and yet it is sought to compel the landlord—against whose wish this house may have been built—to pay the value of such an improvement, although he might much prefer being without it. Such a proposal is opposed, in my opinion, to all our notions of equity. But there is hardly any description of improvement for which compensation could be claimed, such as fencing and perhaps even draining, which may not, in certain cases, be very injudicious, and not in reality calculated to increase the value of the land. Another question also arises in dealing with this matter. Before compensation can be claimed, it ought to be shown that the improvement has been really carried out at the expense of the tenant and has not been already paid for by the landlord—when you come to look back over a tenancy of twenty or thirty years' standing, there is nothing more difficult than to prove that this is the case; and we know from experience that the most preposterous claims on the part of tenants for improvements have teen put forward at the end of long leases. We have the evidence of a gentleman who filled the position of a Master in Chancery in Ireland—a gentleman, I believe, of great ability and judgment—who was, under the orders of the Court of Chancery, directed to report upon certain property with respect to which numerous claims for compensation were brought forward by the tenantry. The claims came to a large amount; but when this gentleman went to the spot and examined into the matter, he found that they were quite preposterous, and being an impartial and disinterested man, he reported to the Court of Chancery that no valid claim whatsoever for compensation existed in that case. All these questions must be considered when you are proposing to give a right to claim compulsory compensation. But more than that—if you attempt to legislate on the principle of giving compulsory compensation, you must bear in mind that you thereby are giving to the landlord an enormous motive to exercise the power which he undoubtedly possesses to prevent such claims from being brought against him. A land agent was examined by us, who stated distinctly that landlords had changed their opinions as to the expediency of granting leases since those 1176 claims for compensation seemed likely to be given: they said that, when there was a chance of Parliament establishing a right of that kind, it would be unwise and imprudent for the landlord to part with his land and place it beyond his own control for a period of several years. If he lets his land only from year to year, and his tenants attempt to make improvements of which he disapproves, he has an easy remedy to resort to by giving them notice to quit; but if he gives them a twenty-one years' lease and Parliament afterwards steps in and says the tenant shall be entitled to make improvements whether the landlord approves them or not, and to call upon him to pay for those improvements at the end of his tenancy, the landlord may be exposed to very serious loss, and will hesitate to grant a lease for so long a time. That is practically the state of things at this moment. Landlords are almost afraid to grant leases, because they feel that they may be used against them. I have now stated very imperfectly some of the objections which occur to me against giving to tenants this power of demanding compulsory compensation for improvements, but I cannot pass from this point without mentioning one fact. One of the most experienced land agents in Ireland was examined on this subject, and was asked what effect such legislation would, in his opinion, have on the mutual relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland. He said he had often thought with horror of the effect which giving stringent powers of that kind to the tenant against the landlord would have in the multiplication of evictions, and in producing misunderstanding and ill-will between landlords and tenants in every part of the country. Such, speaking from memory, were nearly the exact words which were used by the gentleman to whom I am referring. Such being the state of things, my noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) asks your Lordships to give a second reading to a Bill which has been very carefully considered in all its details by the Committee of last year. The Bill is one which proceeds on a very simple principle. It requires, in the first place, that all future agreements with respect to land in Ireland shall be in writing, and it provides the means by which those agreements can be made most simply, cheaply, and expeditiously. It 1177 so entirely reduces their cost that it will not be an object to the smallest farmer. It provides also for having those agreements registered, as well as means by which the landlord and the tenant may each introduce into them any conditions which they may think proper. Then the Bill gives the freest and most unfettered powers to the parties concerned to come fairly to an agreement; and it further provides a simple and effectual means of enforcing the agreements so; made. Either party will be enabled to obtain a legal decision on any point that may be disputed with very little delay, and at a very slight expense. The Bill provides for the earliest possible settlement of all disputes, and for preventing their growing up to such a frightful height as they do under the present system. It likewise contains provisions of the highest importance for enabling landlords and tenants to make arrangements between themselves with regard to the improvement of the soil. It arranges in what proportion the expenses shall be borne and the advantages reaped by both parties, so that there shall be no possible doubt as to their respective rights and claims. Besides all this, the Bill gives great facilities to the holders of entailed estates and other limited owners to grant leases for terms of years, and to make arrangements with their tenants for improvements extending beyond the time for which they may themselves hold their land, care being of course taken that the rights of all parties interested shall be duly respected. This, my Lords, is a short description of the main objects of the Bill, which has been brought into this House more than once, and which has been drawn with great care by Mr. Tighe Hamilton, who has spared no pains in endeavouring to effect all the improvements suggested by the Committee. The Bill in its present shape is, in my belief, well-fitted to pass into law, and would be a most satisfactory piece of legislation. But, if Her Majesty's Government are of a different opinion, there is nothing to prevent their proposing such alterations in it as they may consider to be required. And this is what I think they ought to have done instead of saying, as my noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies has said in effect—"You may pass it through this House if you like, but we advise you not to do so, and 1178 give you warning that we shall do our best to defeat it in the House of Commons." Now, I must say I do not think that is a course which ought to have been taken. If it is thought that a compulsory system of compensation for improvements ought to be engrafted on this Bill, there is no reason why Amendments to effect that object should not be proposed in this House when the measure is under consideration in Committee; but it is a most reckless thing for my noble Friend to assert, as he has done to-night, that there ought to be in some form or other regulations for compulsory compensation in respect of improvements, while, at the same time, he abstains altogether from defining what those regulations should be. He declines to inform us how the difficulties which beset the subject are to be dealt with, and merely tolls us that it will be postponed to another year. Does my noble Friend remember that the postponement of this subject to another year involves another winter in Tipperary? If Her Majesty's Government refuse to do their best in order to enable Parliament to calm the minds of men in regard to this great question, they will be morally responsible for the consequences which may ensue. My Lords, a letter has been recently addressed to one of the principal newspapers in Ireland, by a person who considers himself aggrieved by the existing state of the law. He says—
As to the Church, it is comparatively nothing; as to any other question, it is of minor importance, but what we want now is protection in regard to the land.He adds that his own case is a most cruel one, and that he is threatened with eviction, and that it is our business to settle this question without any further delay. He then repeats that there is no other subject to be compared with this in urgency and importance, and says that it ought to be settled without delay. No doubt this writer thinks we ought to settle it by giving him the complete property in his land. I do not say that; but I do say that we ought at once to determine in some way or other the relative positions of landlords and occupiers of land in Ireland, My noble Friend's balanced phrases, one for the landlord and another for the tenant, can do nothing but unmixed mischief. What is required of Her Majesty's Govern- 1179 ment is that they should take this Bill into consideration, and either adopt or reject it. In the event of their being convinced that this measure will not settle the question in a satisfactory way, it is their duty to call upon this House to throw it out; but it is placing the House in an unfair and improper position to say that, though your Lordships may pass this Bill, the Government will throw it out in the other House.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYMy Lords, I can assure my noble Friend that I am not at all alarmed at the minatory tone of his remarks against Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government will choose their own time and their own manner for dealing with the matter, whatever may be the opinions and, I might almost say, the menaces of my noble Friend. In point of fact, my noble Friend wishes to induce the House to take the course which he failed to induce the Committee that inquired into the subject to take last year. My noble Friend proposed in that Committee a very ably drawn Report, to the ability of which all who have read it will do full justice. In that Report he points out with great force his objections to any possible scheme for the compulsory compensation of tenants for any improvements made on their farms. Well, my noble Friend so far induced the Committee to adopt his views that, when I proposed the omission of the controversial part of his Report, I was beaten by a majority of 9 to 5. On further consideration, however, the Committee adopted a wiser and more prudent course, and determined that my noble Friend's Report should not be presented to the House, but they should merely recommend the Bill to the House. Now, I have a right to assume that the Committee took that course because they deemed it more prudent to leave open these questions; and, in fact, they did exactly that which my noble Friend is so exceedingly angry with us for proposing to do. They thought most probably that this was a question which could be most satisfactorily dealt with by the Government. My noble Friend is very angry with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies because he did not state his objections to the Bill. But how could my noble Friend state his objections when he expressly commenced by saying that the 1180 Bill contained many good provisions, and that some would afford an excellent basis for legislation? Nor can I make the objections which my noble Friend opposite is so anxious to hear in order that he may demolish them in his reply. I think the noble Marquess is entitled, to great praise for drawing up the Bill; and I think the Bill has been considerably improved by the labours of the Select Committee, and that it is now a good Bill. But I desire to point out that it certainly will not be accepted in Ireland as a settlement of the land question. My noble Friend has remarked that it is a very dangerous thing to hold out language to the people of Ireland that might be misunderstood. One would suppose, from what we have heard tonight, that this question had arisen but yesterday—that it was something new; but it has—unhappily I admit—been agitated in Ireland for many years; and it is a question as to which both the great parties in the State, when under the responsibilities of Office, have agreed that some further legislation is necessary beyond that which is proposed by my noble Friend. My noble Friend went through the various Bills which have been previously proposed—the Bill brought in by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) then, as now, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and also the Bill introduced by Lord Mayo. I have a right to infer from those Bills and from the Bill proposed by the Ministry of the noble Lords opposite, that those who have been responsible for the government of the country of late years have been conscious that some further legislation on this subject is requisite than that contemplated by the noble Marquess. They may or may not have been right in that; but I say that no Government, at the present time, in dealing with this question can afford to disregard what has been done by former Governments or the expectations which have been raised by their proposals. My noble Friend (Earl Granville) justly pointed out that in these various proposals might probably be found the germs of a measure which might be accepted by all parties. Strong objections might have been taken to some parts of the scheme of Lord Derby's Government; at the same time, when some discussion occurred regarding that Bill, two years ago, I said then, as I say 1181 now, that I would not take the responsibility of rejecting the proposals of that Bill without very mature consideration, the question it dealt with being one of so difficult, so perplexing, and so serious a nature. Undoubtedly, that measure went exceedingly far in principle, because, as my noble Friend has pointed out, it expressly recognized that improvements might be made by the tenants on their landlords estates without the consent and even against the will of their landlords; and it also proposed to lend the credit of the British Treasury to tenants on the security of the landlord's property for executing improvements to which he had not consented. I merely mention this to show that those who were then responsible for the government of Ireland found it necessary to go further than the Bill of the noble Marquess does. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) has challenged us to state the principles on which we think it would be wise to legislate. I entirely decline to follow him on that ground; it would be in the highest degree indiscreet for me to do so. For excellent Parliamentary reasons—from the state of the Session, and the circumstances of the moment at which the present Government was formed—it is impossible to give this grave question the deliberation it requires with a view to legislation this year; and it would, therefore, be most improper to attempt by anticipation to indicate the provisions of any scheme which may be brought forward in a future Session. But I am sure I speak the feeling of my Colleagues when I say that we should not consent to a measure upsetting the rights of property and inconsistent with the just rights which must be maintained throughout the United Kingdom. The sound principles laid down by the noble Marquess must be borne in mind—that while we should endeavour in some way to devise a scheme which may satisfy moderate men in Ireland, recognizing that some different arrangements are necessary there than now exist to secure the tenant the enjoyment of the money he has laid out, at the same time we ought to take care not to unsettle the rights of property throughout the United Kingdom. I have thought it proper to say thus much, because it it is said that vague expectations are entertained in Ireland on this subject. It would pro- 1182 bably be for the advantage of the measure before us, and for the settlement of the question to which it relates, that the Bill should not be dealt with in a hostile manner by those who do not deem it sufficient for the purpose; but we find nothing inconsistent, with the policy which we may have to propose in another Session, in not objecting directly to the second reading of this measure, although it is one which we think it would probably be better should not be passed into a law during the present Session. I am sorry that I am obliged to decline to answer my noble Friend in regard to the objections he has made to various schemes for giving compensation to tenants in Ireland; as for the reasons I have given I think it would be more prudent and right that I should abstain from following him on that ground.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYWhat I object to is not that Her Majesty's Government do not take up this Bill or try to pass an Irish Land Bill this year—I can appreciate the difficulties that such an undertaking would involve—but what I complain of is the exaggerated tone held as to Ministerial discretion and reserve on the present occasion, and to the entire ignoring of the peculiar and terrible state of things existing in Ireland at the present moment. They do not consent to see—they will not see—that there is something more than a party—there is almost a class in that country who entertain and preach doctrines absolutely subversive of all the established rights of property—that these men claim in the strongest terms an alienation of part of the property of the landlords to themselves, and they declare that the question shall be settled in no other way, and that they will be content with no other terms. On the other hand, we have a Government recently appointed, belonging to the Liberal party, containing within its bosom Members distinguished in past times by a strong and exaggerated sentiment on the subject of changes in the law of landed property—a Government more powerful than any which has existed since the Devon Commission reported. Under these circumstances it seems to me that something more is required from the Government than diplomatic reticence on a subject such as this. I acknowledge the infinite skill displayed in the balanced periods and vague de- 1183 clarations which we have heard from the two noble Lords opposite. It would have been impossible for them to use language more fit for the purpose of concealing their thoughts than they have done. But it is upon this careful and adroit reticence that the disaffection of Ireland leans. Every man who hopes for revolutionary change in regard to the landed property of Ireland from this Liberal Government may find in the careful reticence of the two noble Lords opposite matter to keep alive his expectations for another year. Now, my Lords, I believe myself that the Cabinet are what we should, on this side, call "sound" on this question of property. I do not believe they will interfere with the liberty of the landlord and the tenant to contract—the one as to his land, and the other as to his labour; I believe they will sustain the rights of property intact: but I can see that that belief may well not be shared by those who read their speeches in Ireland. My own opinion of the matter is this—that, putting all reticence aside, if they will but do what so strong a Government ought to find the courage to do—namely, declare their principles in the face of day, that will be enough to crush these wild, schemes, to dash down the false expectations and exaggerated hopes which I admit the weakness of successive Governments and the vacillation of successive Parliaments have raised, and give to Ireland the only chance she still possesses, by the restoration of those sound principles on which alone her tranquillity can be based. In that way they might bring about the flow of capital for which, as the noble Marquess said, Ireland has hitherto looked in vain, and might lay the foundation of that prosperity which can alone spring from the security of property. But, if they will only consult the dictates of Parliamentary finesse, and pride themselves on their dexterity in putting their adversaries off the scent, they will incur the responsibility of all the evils which may ensue in Ireland, and they must expect that the false and subversive doctrines, which are doing so much harm in that country, will continue to grow and spread, and will render it all the more difficult to settle this question when the time comes for dealing with it in the only way in which statesmen can deal with it. Therefore, my Lords, I feel 1184 deep regret at the course which the two noble Lords opposite have pursued this evening. I do not ask them to take up or to pass this Bill; but to take some means of honestly declaring their views on this subject, and thus relieve the British Government from the charge that is freely made against them of complicity in some of those revolutionary views that have been expressed on this subject.
§ LORD ATHLUMNEYMy Lords, as the measures on this subject with which it fell to my lot formerly to be connected have been referred to, I wish to say that those measures were solely confined to the purpose of giving compensation to tenants for their improvements. At that period no one thought of going further than that; but since then, my Lords, the state of things has become very different, and the mind of the tenantry of Ireland is now running in a very different channel. But, my Lords, I was not the first who attempted to deal with this subject. One, if not two, Secretaries for Ireland, before my time, undertook to legislate upon it, but failed. I failed. It was not surprising that I should have done so, when abler men who followed me also failed. It was, I think, in 1847, that I introduced a Bill, it is now 1869—twenty-two years have elapsed since that time, and nothing has been done. It was that continued series of failures, one after another, which made me think the difficulties in the way of any scheme for providing compensation for improvements were almost insuperable, and therefore I fell back upon the plan which was embodied in the measure of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde). I thought, and still think, that the simplicity of that Bill, which insists upon a written contract in all transactions between landlord and tenant—would put an end, if not to all, to the great majority of cases in which those misunderstandings and disputes which have led to such lamentable results have arisen. If by the plan of my noble Friend we could by any possibility ameliorate the state of relations between landlord and tenant, would it not be better to try it than to originate another Bill which might be attended with the same failure which has attended former attempts on the subject? My Lords, I heard with gratification from my noble Friend below me 1185 (Earl Granville) that Her Majesty's Government will not be a party—if I understood him rightly—to any violation of the rights of property. Now, let not my noble Friend be alarmed. Let him not think that any such declaration will be unpopular in Ireland. Far from it; for the Irish tenant is a very shrewd fellow, and he is beginning to think—and many of them already think—that if the property of the landlords is invaded the property of the tenants will not last very long. Therefore, my Lords, there are in Ireland thousands of the tenant class—who, perhaps might not say so—who perhaps would be afraid to say so—but who will be delighted to hear that no sanction will be given on the part of Her Majesty's Government to any violation of the rights of property. I hope I have not misinterpreted what fell from my noble Friend on that head. My Lords, the situation of Ireland is peculiar. The agricultural prosperity now prevailing in that country is extraordinary. Almost all the farmers are well-to-do. Of course, here and there is an unfortunate man who may be sinking—there are such in all countries, at all times, and in all years; but, as a whole, I think I never remember so much prosperity and contentment among the agricultural class as regards their pecuniary position as there is at the present time. I have heard it remarked by others that that very prosperity gives rise to the intense desire which at all times exists in Ireland among the agricultural classes, but especially now and in times of prosperity, to gain and keep possession of the land. My Lords, you are not to believe everything you read in the public Press as regards the sentiments of the tenantry in Ireland. You are not to believe that what you there read speaks the sentiments of the whole class of tenants. Far from it. I believe the tenantry, as a class, are satisfied and contented at the present moment, and that many of them would be very glad if they were let alone. My Lords, a Committee sat, last year, under the presidency of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde), and many of your Lordships no doubt looked at the evidence taken before them. That Committee was the means of eliciting evidence that many of the notions which are sought to be kept alive in this country with regard to the relations of landlords 1186 and tenants in Ireland have no solid foundation whatsoever. I believe that the tenantry of Ireland and what are called "the old landlords" of the country are very much attached indeed, and that kindness—common kindness—on the part of the landlord towards the tenantry elicits a great return of kindness and good-will. I can say that as far as I am concerned; and I am sure I can say the same for the great majority of landlords. My Lords, the religion of the landlord, as my noble Friend below me has well observed, is never thought of. Such a thing never enters into the mind of the tenantry; and, if I may presume to speak of myself again, I would say I am persuaded that, Protestant as I am, if I were to change my religion to-morrow I should not in the least be on a bettor footing with my tenants, and that I should not conciliate their goodwill and kind feeling in the smallest degree more than I do at present. Then, again, many of the assertions which are made with regard to the relations between landlord and tenant have no foundation in fact. The statement as to high rents, exorbitant rents, demanded for land on account of the great competition that exists has really no foundation in fact. The "old landlords" of Ireland never consider their lands as an article of commodity; they never put them up to the highest bidder; whenever an opportunity occurs of re-letting their land it is done upon moderate terms, according to fixed rules and by mutual agreement, to the advantage of both parties. But with regard to the new proprietors—that is, the proprietors who have come into the possession of land through the Incumbered Estates Court—the case is somewhat different. And, as I have mentioned the Incumbered Estates Court, let me corroborate what has fallen from my noble Friend as to the share taken by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Romilly), not now in his place, in the creation of that court. I was Chief Secretary for Ireland at the time, and I never heard a second opinion on the subject. The Master of the Rolls was the author of the Act by which the Incumbered Estates Court was created, and deserves the credit of it. But with regard to the proprietors who have acquired land under the Incumbered Estates Court, their case is somewhat different from 1187 that of the old landlords. They want the interest of their money. They have purchased land as a marketable commodity, and they have in many instances—unduly, some of them—raised the rents of the tenants and created great dissatisfaction. But there is besides in Ireland a class which is known in that country as "land-jobbers." An Irishman knows exactly what they are; and there is in no community a more mischievous class or one more reckless in their proceedings, so that they have brought the relations between landlord and tenant into discredit. It would be quite superfluous for me to attempt a description of the provisions of this Bill. That has been done by my noble Friend who moved the second reading, and by my noble Friend on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey). I have stated why I approve this measure. I venture to think, my Lords, that the same difficulties which have arisen on former occasions will again arise when you attempt to legislate in the same fashion; but the responsibility in that case must rest with Her Majesty's Government. I hope the words of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) will go forth to the country, because the country is at the present moment in a very unsettled state. I hope that his declaration will have its effect in Ireland; and that those who are looking forward to a measure which will unsettle the rights of property, and by which something will be taken away from one man to be given to another, will now know that they have nothing of the kind to expect from Her Majesty's Government.
§ LORD WESTBURYMy Lords, I had the honour of being a member of the Committee to which reference has been made, and although I did not attend regularly, I was always in my place whenever it was thought the attendance of a lawyer would be beneficial. The Committee found the affairs of Ireland, as far as regards the relation between landlord and tenant, in a state of the greatest confusion, and they applied themselves to the amendment of the law. After much deliberation this Bill was produced, which we regarded as an amended code of the law as regards landlord and tenant. It did not attempt to deal with the larger questions involved in the matter; but a more useful code for ascertaining and administering 1188 the law could not, in my opinion, be framed. I have heard, therefore, with some regret that Her Majesty's Government will not accept this basis for future legislation. If their future proceedings are to be founded upon law, let them begin by amending the law between landlord and tenant in the manner in which this Bill suggests, and we shall have some confidence that their future proceedings will follow in the same direction, and, we hope, will be founded upon the same basis. The noble Lord on my right (Lord Athlumney) told us his mind was very much relieved by the declaration we heard from the noble Earl, lately Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, that what would be done by the Government for Ireland in the future would have regard to the just rights of property. My Lords, it is singular we should have come to a time when Her Majesty's Government deems it necessary to proclaim to the world that they do not mean to violate the rights of property. This would be unintelligible were it not that a Bill in the other House of Parliament explains to us what meaning the Government attaches to the phrase "the rights of property." I ask them to re-consider their determination, and to accept this Bill as the first instalment of these proceedings with regard to Irish measures. My Lords, thus far I have complained of the reticence of the Government; but we have equal reason to complain of the reticence of Her Majesty's Opposition, from whom we have not received one word, either in encouragement of the noble Marquess or in deprecation of his measure.
§ LORD CAIRNSMy Lords, my noble Friend below me (the Marquess of Salisbury) has so fully expressed the views of those who sit on this side, both as to the general merits of that Bill, and as to the somewhat singular course which has been taken by Her Majesty's Government with regard to it, that I do not think it necessary to add to what had been so well said. I am very glad, however, that my noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Westbury) has given me the opportunity of rising, in order that I may, in the first place, join with him in expressing my great satisfaction at the assurance we have had from the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) that when Her Majesty's Government do proceed to deal with the 1189 law of landlord and tenant in Ireland, they intend to do so upon the basis of the laws of property. It is certainly a somewhat unusual state of things that in your Lordships' House a declaration to that effect should be held to be a relief to the minds of those who heard it. I cannot help however observing that it appears to me that your Lordships are placed, with regard to this particular Bill, in a somewhat singular position. As to the merits of the Bill we are all agreed—no speaker on either side the House has failed to bear testimony to the great merits of the measure, and the singular care with which it has been prepared. But what is the course the Government propose to take with regard to it? In this House, the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) says he is not prepared to offer any opposition to the Bill; and the Lord Privy Seal went further, and declared that it is a most excellent measure, which ought to form the basis of any legislation upon the subject of landlord and tenant. Therefore Her Majesty's Government, in this House, are not going to oppose the second reading of the Bill, nor to vote against any of its provisions—on the contrary, the Government propose to facilitate the passing of the Bill through this House. But what is to be done in the other House of Parliament? The Bill will go down to the other House, and I want to know what course the Government will take upon it there? Are the Government in the other House going to do what its representatives are going to do here, or are they going to do precisely the opposite and vote against the Bill? Reference was made by the noble Earl to the various measures upon this subject which had been brought in by preceding Governments; and the Lord Privy Seal said that the Government meant to deal with, the Irish land question, and would announce their intention of doing so at a future time. The reason he gave for the course now taken by the Government is that every previous Government has admitted the necessity of legislating with regard to the land in Ireland, and each preceding Government had had a Bill of their own upon the subject. I want, however, to point out to the noble Lords opposite the difference between their case and the case of prior Governments. Prior Governments introduced their 1190 measures upon, the subject, and laid them on the table of the House—so that there could be no misunderstanding, no exaggeration, no misrepresentation, as to what the measure was which the Government was prepared to support. The present Government, however, says that the position of the land in Ireland is extremely unsatisfactory. But in Ireland there are a number of persons who say the same thing—they know their own meaning, and when they see the declaration of the Government, and do not see any proposals showing how the Government mean to deal with that unsatisfactory state of things, they will be not unlikely to conclude that the Government means the same as they do. And what are the statements made by individual Members of the Government upon the subject? I find that a very eminent Member of the Government, now a Secretary of State, went down to his constituents at the late General Election, and stated that the state of Ireland was very unsatisfactory, and asked how they could expect it to be otherwise, when six-sevenths of the land in Ireland was owned by Protestants? That was the view of one Member of the Government with regard to the unsatisfactory state of things in Ireland. [Earl GRANVILLE: Where were the words used?] These words were used at Merthyr Tydvil by Mr. Bruce, previous to his appointment to be Home Secretary. And what did the Prime Minister say? He went down to South Lancashire, and, if he is correctly reported, he said that—"The system of Protestant ascendancy in Ireland is a great and noxious tree, which rears its head aloft and poisons everything within its reach; the Church is one branch of it, but the land," he said, "is another." Were those statements noticed in Ireland, or were they not? Was it not natural that those in Ireland who desire a change in the possession of the land should say—"The Government admits that the state of things in Ireland is unsatisfactory; we have an explanation from one Member of the Government of what he considers unsatisfactory; and the Prime Minister declares that the land question is connected with Protestant ascendancy; they only defer dealing with the land question till the Church question is settled—and the mode in which they pro- 1191 pose to deal with the Church is to take away its property and give the Church tenants the option of buying the land at a price to be named by certain Commissioners; we have, therefore, not the least doubt that, if the Government told what was in their inmost minds, they would tell us that they intend to introduce a similar measure with regard to the land, and we shall do all we can to bring about that result." The consequence of that feeling is that dealing with the land in Ireland, in the shape of granting leases or otherwise, has been for the present suspended, and you have the commencement of an agitation in the country for which I must say Her Majesty's Government must be held responsible.
THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, it is undoubtedly a great satisfaction to me that, in the course of this debate, we have heard a speech like that which has been delivered, by the noble Lord formerly Chief Secretary for Ireland (Lord Athlumney)—a speech which has tended in some degree to throw oil upon the troubled waters, and which presented a picture of peace and harmony that prevails, I doubt not, in the portion of the country with which he is familiar. Most devoutly do I wish that picture was equally true of the rest of Ireland. I do not pretend to say that the Governments abstaining or desiring to abstain during the present Session from bringing in a measure relying upon the state of Ireland being satisfactory; far from it. Twenty-one years ago, when I entered Parliament, I heard the first speeches of Mr. Sharman Crawford upon the subject. I do not know how many speeches he may have made—I heard six—or how many Bills he may have brought in; but from that time forward there have been attempts made to settle this question: and now we have just been told by the noble and learned Lord who has last spoken (Lord Cairns) that the pre-eminence he claims for the Government with which he has been associated is this—that they at least had a remedy, that they at least brought forward their Bill, that they at least submitted it to the consideration of Parliament; though they had not been so fortunate as to persuade Parliament to pass it. My attention has not been of late years so much directed to politics as it once was; but I believe I am not much 1192 mistaken in saying that one year the Government with which my noble Friend was connected brought forward a Bill with which they did not proceed, and last Session they promised a Bill which they did not bring forward. If that be the case, surely we are not placed at a great disadvantage as compared with our predecessors? But, my Lords, the question is of a far higher nature than the conduct of Government on one side or the other; and really if my noble and learned Friend had not made the remarks he did I should not have been tempted to make these observations. I do not deny the gravity of the ease; I do not deny the importance of finding a remedy as speedily as you can, consistently with producing one which will be satisfactory. But when the noble Earl who spoke early in the debate (Earl Grey) told us we should be answerable for all the misery and mischief which might occur if we delayed legislation for another year; I do not think, after this delay of twenty or thirty years, the noble Earl can have fairly weighed his words in making the remark. Assuredly it is not desirable, in the state of mind which he pictures to us as existing in Ireland, to throw out words of this description, and to say to those who are disposed to be insubordinate and to disregard the law—"Never mind, you are not responsible; but the Government is responsible for all that you do." But it did not occur to the noble Earl to consider whether a measure which would not settle the question, and would not be satisfactory, might not be regarded by those who are dissatisfied as a mere mockery and a mere delusion, and whether the passing of it would not be tantamount to saying—"We know your grievances, and we believe them to exist; we have a measure before us which we will pass in a hurry, because we have not time to think of a better; and we will leave you to take your chance of any future complete measure for settling the grievances of which you complain." Anything more improper than such a declaration on the part of a Government I can hardly conceive. I join issue with my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) who says the measure which the Government has on hand, and which has been demanded by majorities in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, is a prelude to spoliation and destruction of pro- 1193 perty; but I will not be drawn into the discussion of that question. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) says he does not blame the Government for not bringing a Land Bill forward because he knows their time and attention is fully occupied by another subject: but he blames them for not coming forward and declaring what they think. My Lords, consider the injustice of this course. The Government unfortunately is not in the position of the noble Marquess; he can tell us what he thinks; but if the Secretary of State for the Colonies told the House what he thought, he must have told the House what was thought by the Cabinet, and must have stated the policy they would be prepared to follow when they have matured their measure. I must say it is not a fair course of proceeding to make such a demand. I am very far from charging the noble Marquess with unfairness in his ordinary proceedings, but I do not think it is fair on the present occasion so to deal with us. We are asked to take this measure as the basis for our legislation, and then we are told that the world will believe we are sincere in our declarations that we do not intend to interfere with the rights of property. I must confess that I, for one, do utterly and entirely protest against my character and my reputation depending upon whether I do or do not adopt the Bill of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde). It may be a good Bill, and I believe in many respects it is; I believe it to be a measure of which it is impossible to oppose the second reading; but I cannot assent to the conclusion that, because we do not oppose the principle of the Bill and yet say that it will not be complete and satisfactory, we are bound to point out all its defects and to state how we would propose to legislate. At this late hour I do not propose prolonging the discussion; but if we look to all that has been done before, we have no reason to be ashamed of the course we have taken. We do not find that any Government has taken up the subject in a satisfactory manner, and the late Government was far from attaining any such result. I do say that for any Government to bring forward a Bill on a great political or social subject which they have not maturely considered, and to throw it before Parliament and say—"We leave you to manage it, to digest it, and to put it into 1194 proper shape for us," is a course which never ought to be adopted. We prefer to consider maturely the proper course to be taken on a grave subject. We are not afraid of any of those taunts which have been thrown out to-night as to our being disposed to make some grievous attack on property, wherefore we ought to enter into bonds and give sureties for our future conduct; but we trust that our measure will be one which will receive the assent and approval of both sides of the House; that it will be accepted as a measure to promote the benefit and happiness of Ireland, and to put an end to the present state of things—an object the attainment of which ought not to be a party question, and in the pursuit of which there ought to be no party feeling.
§ THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, in reply, expressed his satisfaction at the manner in which the Bill had been received. He would not attempt any reply upon the observation that had been made, further than to observe that it was the duty of Government, above all things, to maintain peace, and he did not see that the present Government had taken a step in that direction. If the Government were really favourable to legislation on a constitutional basis, he entreated them to consider the propriety of supporting this Bill.
§ Motion agreed to; Bill read 2ª accordingly.