Lords Sitting of 17 June 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Protection of Inventions* (142); Magistrates in populous Places (Scotland)* (143).
Second Reading—Ecclesiastical Dilapidations (No. 2)* (114); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* (110); Jewish United Synagogues* (137); Saint Olave, &c. Charities* (138); Irish Land (122).
Committee—Report—Appellate Jurisdiction *(136–144).
Report—Churchwardens Liability* (101); Sequestration (116–145); Union of Benefices Amendment (1870)* (140).
Third Reading—High Court of Justice (135), and passed.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BILL.

  (NO. 135.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, he rose to propose the Amendment of which he had given Notice, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. He had done so on what he thought the very reasonable ground that, inasmuch as they were about to abolish all the ancient Courts of the land, it was only proper that they should wait until the Bill by which the general rules of procedure were to be declared, and by which the new judicature was to be governed, had been assented to by Parliament. Moreover it would be useless to bring this Bill through their Lordships' House, for the legal Members of the House of Commons were just about to leave in order to go on circuit. If this was not done the Courts and their regulations might be abolished, and no distinct course provided for. He quoted from a work by the late John George Phillimore on the Roman Law, which found fault with every branch of the administration of justice. He (Lord Denman) did not entirely agree with him; but he thought it a serious matter to alter every well-known precedent for the sake of adopting the system possibly of that which the same late learned author called the unreformable Court of Chancery.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Lord Denman.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would not now repeat what he had said on former occasions—especially as a very important subject was about to come on. He could assure the noble Lord that no disrespect was intended by the Bill to the Common Law Courts, or to the eminent Judges who presided in them, and he had at previous stages adopted various Amendments that had been suggested by noble and learned Lords.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to omit Clause 7 (Salaries of
  318
  Judges of High Court). The clause, while it continued to the existing Judges the same salaries as they at present enjoyed, proposed a new scale for the future, by which the salaries of the future Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and the Chief Baron of the Exchequer were reduced to £6,000 per annum, and those of the Lords Justices to £5,000 per annum. This proposed reduction in the salaries of the Judges had no connection with the fusion of Law and Equity, and he hoped it would not be persevered in. Nor was it altogether consistent with the understanding that these minor details should be left until the questions of principle had been decided, and it was known how the change would work. The position of our Judges had always been a subject of great jealousy with our statesmen: and if it should appear that any reduction in their salaries was required, it was a question which should originate with the House of Commons. The independence of our Judicial Bench had always been a subject of great national pride, and it was in some degree attributed to the liberality with which the distinguished men raised to it were remunerated. At a time when expenses of all kinds were increasing, when wealth was increasing, and when the earnings of distinguished barristers were constantly rising, it was a serious step to reduce the salaries of those to whom we looked for the protection of the fortunes and lives of Her Majesty's subjects.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the reduction, as he explained on a former occasion, would only operate in two cases. The Master of the Rolls not only exercised judicial duties in the Court of Chancery, but had other important functions, which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Romilly) had so effectually discharged by the publication of the public records; but, though superior in rank to the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, his salary was £6,000, while theirs was £7,000. It was considered desirable, when transferring him to the appellate jurisdiction, to correct this anomaly. The salary of the Lord Chief Justice of England would not be interfered with. The unwillingness of the late Lord Kingsdown to accept the office of Vice Chancellor, which was attributed by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Romilly) to the inadequacy of the

  319
  salary, he believed was owing to the possession of a considerable fortune, which induced him to give his valuable services to the Judicial Committee in preference to the Court of Chancery, where his duties would have been more unpleasant, there being the necessity of constantly attending chambers.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he would not repeat the objections he had already urged against the clause; but having been informed by competent authorities that it would be struck out as soon as it left the House, as a matter touching the privileges of the Commons, he objected to its being now retained for the mere purpose of intimating to the Commons the arrangement which they would be prepared to sanction. He hoped his noble and learned Friend would consent to do at once what would otherwise be done two minutes hence by a power beyond his control.
  LORD WESTBURYurged the desirability of giving larger salaries to the Chiefs of the different Courts, in order that the other Judges might be encouraged to aspire to promotion. He thought that, if the salaries of the Chiefs of two of the Courts were reduced, the logical inference was that the salaries of the inferior Judges should be reduced also. He hoped the clause would be struck out.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was willing that the clause should be expunged, as well as all the money clauses which would otherwise be struck out on the Bill going down to the Commons as irregular. His reason for inserting them was, that he did not think it right to keep in the background any of the changes which it was proposed to make. The question, however, had better go to the Commons entirely unprejudiced, as it would there be more fitly considered.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhoped that when the Bill came back to their Lordships the question would not be passed over as a matter of course.
  Clauses struck out: Amendments made.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  PROTEST
  Against the Third Reading.
  DISSENTIENT:
  "1. Because in Clause 2. the division of the so-called High Court of Justice for the convenient despatch of business into five divisional courts, to be styled respectively the Court of Chancery, the Court of Queen's Bench, the Court of Common
  320
  Pleas, the Court of Exchequer, and the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Court (excluding the name of the Rolls Court), and the uncertainty caused by the words in the third line of the second page, 'or to be otherwise styled in such manner as Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, from time to time determine, 'and' each of the said courts shall be presided over by a Lord President,' is no improvement on the well known division of business now relied upon by suitors; whilst the grouping together of judges, several of whom at present sit alone, is a waste of power which is unnecessary, and because the names of the heads of each court are now well known, and their duties defined, the transfer of equity jurisdiction to them may induce the framers of rules to introduce the system of Bill and Answer into courts in which the pleadings have become every year less complicated, and in such case the alteration of the system of our ancient courts will cause great delay and uncertainty.
  "2. Because some such improvement as the procedure in petitions of right (simplified by Lord Westbury) is needful to be known by the public before a sweeping change in Common Law Procedure is hastily projected.
  "3. Because if only one judge sit at all times to try civil causes, and only one judge for criminal causes at all times of the year, with the exception of legal vacations, there will be danger of having a divided bar, unless great care be taken to prevent the clashing with circuits.
  "4. Because the Report of the Commission upon which this Bill was founded was considered by the Law Amendment Society as the production more of a small cabinet of lawyers than of representatives of the general feelings of the Bench, the Bar, and the Legal Profession.
  "5. Because the Incorporated Law Society, in their last petition, attach great importance to the formation of a code which should inform the profession what course should be adopted in procedure, and do not desire indefinite improvement.
  "6. Because also the Incorporated Law Society have just fears of the provision for compulsory arbitration, especially by men unacquainted with the law, whose awards may not be made in a binding form; and the temptation to refer causes being very great, some check should be imposed, if not equal to the present right by either side to refuse his consent to a reference, yet sufficient to prevent the plaintiff from wishing in vain to withdraw his record, and the defendant from submitting to injustice rather than incur the expense and delay of arbitration.
  "DENMAN."

SEQUESTRATION BILL.—(No. 116.)
(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
SEQUESTRATION BILL.—(No. 116.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, he was indebted to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) for some Amendments necessary to make the Bill harmonize with the Bankruptcy Law, and these he proposed to adopt. Other

  321
  Amendments suggested by his noble and learned Friend he could not adopt. Although, no doubt, they would remove some anomalies, they would not promote the object which he, and he believed their Lordships also, had in view—namely, the removal of the scandal occasioned by sequestrations, and the assertion of the principle that the endowment was primarily for the benefit of the parishioners, and only secondarily for that of the clergyman. These Amendments he could not therefore accept, and if they were adopted he should be obliged to throw up the Bill.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he could not allow the Bill to pass this stage without protesting against some of its principles, which he thought went much too far. The Bill would remedy the great defect of the existing law by allowing the Bishop to appropriate an unlimited portion of the income of the sequestered benefice to the spiritual necessities of the parish; but he objected to the clauses which made bankruptcy compulsory in the event of a clergyman being involved in difficulties, even though the creditors might be willing to accede to a compromise. This, he feared, would create a greater scandal than it removed, for bankruptcy would be a greater scandal than sequestration. He must also protest against the clauses which enabled Bishops and Archbishops, in cases where a beneficed clerk has been adjudged bankrupt, and shall fail to obtain his discharge within two years of adjudication, without any legal proceedings, summarily and without further process to declare that the bankrupt has forfeited his benefice. If a clergyman charged with drunkenness or immorality was tried before the proper tribunal, from whose decision either party could appeal, the penalty was two to five years' suspension; now, the misfortune or offence of bankruptcy was surely a more venial one, and it was not just, therefore, to empower the Bishop, or on appeal, the Archbishop, acting at his pleasure, without any judicial process, to visit it with forfeiture of the benefice. He could not allow the Bill to proceed without protesting against the introduction of a system of discipline which the country would be loth—to say the least—to see established.
  Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a on Monday the 27th instant, and to be printed as amended. (No. 145.)

IRISH LAND BILL—(No. 122.)
(The Earl Granville.)
IRISH LAND BILL—(No. 122.)

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading [which Amendment was, That the Bill be read a second time this day six months (The Lord Oranmore and Brown)], read; Debate resumed accordingly.
  LORD LURGANsaid, that having a very grateful recollection of their Lordships' indulgence when he first had the honour of addressing them, it would be ungenerous for him to trespass on their attention at unnecessary length. He agreed, indeed, with what fell the other night from the noble Duke the leader of the Opposition (the Duke of Richmond) that their Lordships' time and patience had been considerably tried in listening to the claims and in endeavouring to redress the grievances of that portion of the kingdom to which he (Lord Lurgan) belonged. As an Irishman, he tendered his cordial acknowledgments for what their Lordships had done for his country, and for what had been done for it in "another place;" and he entertained a strong feeling that, at no distant period, the sentiment of gratitude towards the British Parliament, irrespective of party or politics, would be more frequently and more warmly expressed than hitherto. The present Bill, after undergoing full discussion "elsewhere" for several months, had come up to their Lordships in such a manner as to leave no doubt that it had received the favourable verdict of the country; but it was natural that, although the Bill was safe to pass the critical stage of the second reading, so many noble Lords should have desired to speak upon it—for who could be so fit to criticize the details of the Bill, than men whose knowledge of the subject, through their extensive experience in the management of their own estates, must be so profound? Though his own experience was limited, and his property very small compared with many of their Lordships, he entreated their indulgence while considering the Bill from an Ulster proprietor's point of view. Candour compelled him to state at the outset that he was a strong supporter of the custom of that Province, which he

  323
  had frequently seen tested, and had never known to fail. Hence he had listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Abercorn), with the greater part of which he most cordially concurred. The noble Duke's opinion naturally carried great weight in Ulster, where he was deservedly respected; and his able advocacy of their provincial custom entitled him to the thanks alike of landlords and tenants, who must rejoice at having found so excellent a champion. Now, the system known as Ulster tenant-right was an important feature of this Irish Land Bill; for, by the 1st clause, the usages known as the Ulster custom were declared legal, and, by the 2nd, usages in other Provinces which in all their particulars were essentially analogous to the Ulster custom were also acknowledged and legalized. The principle of compensation for disturbance contained in the 3rd clause, which had excited so much alarm, was simply the enactment, within limits, of that principle of compensation for goodwill which had so long formed an element of the Ulster custom; and the principle of recognizing the tenants' claim for improvements was another element of the Ulster custom, under which the tenant's improvements had always been recognized by the landlord. So also the machinery of the Bill, its provisions for arbitration, its Equities Clause, and its local tribunals, were all based on that system of tenant-right which was frequently misunderstood and misinterpreted, but than which, where it was properly understood and legitimately interpreted, he said, without hesitation—the peculiar circumstances of the North of Ireland being duly considered—nothing could work better for the landlords, the tenants, and all classes concerned. He had formed that opinion from the experience he had acquired on his own property and also from the adjoining estates, with the mode of managing which he was thoroughly cognizant. He also asked, could there be any real objection to the legality of the Ulster tenant-right being recognized? As far as the recognition of tenants' improvements, effected either by themselves or their predecessors, there had been, ever since the Devon Commission's Report of 1845, a strong feeling in favour of recognizing such usages. And that was not confined to Ulster alone;
  324
  for, as he understood, in England the various usages of different districts and different estates were recognized, provided only they were reasonable. So far, the English and Irish systems were analogous; but then he came to that which he admitted was peculiar to Ireland—the principle of compensation for goodwill or disturbance. Some were inclined to disregard that principle. To such he would say—"Remember the difference between the history of England and the Plantation of Ulster." The Plantation of Ulster was effected in the reign of James I. The parties who obtained grants of land were usually the younger members of the English and Scotch aristocracy and landed gentry; they were accompanied by artizans and farmers, and, taken together, were about equal in population to the native Irish—a proportion which had been roughly observed up to the present day. For the government of that Colony King James I. introduced every English institution save one—the English Poor Law. And whether it was that that Poor Law had only been established since 1601, or but two years prior to his accession, or whether it was that the only poor who were expected to exist in that Province were the native Irish—and in the policy of that time it was not deemed expedient to give them rights similar to those enjoyed by the like class in England—the remarkable fact remained that for more than two centuries the Ulster Plantation existed without the English Poor Law. To that circumstance, in his mind, might be attributed the historical origin of the payment for goodwill. There being no Poor Law from the time of the Plantation till 1838, no new tenant would enter on a farm until the old one was provided for sufficiently either to enable him to move to a town or some new sphere of industry. That payment for goodwill was in after times increased by other circumstances. One of these was the rapid increase of the population; and there being no mineral wealth or extensive manufactures to absorb them, the people betook themselves to emigration. Under those circumstances, the disturbance of the small tenants in Ireland was to them a much more serious loss than the disturbance of the small tenants in England, and only to be met by a payment equal to the cost of emigration. There could be no doubt that the large

  325
  emigration which had carried the Ulster peasantry to Canada and Australia had been defrayed out of the payments for goodwill. And right well had that usage worked as a check to arbitrary and hasty eviction, while it had also secured that such emigration should go on as was healthy and necessary at the cost of the land of Ireland rather than at the cost of the Irish tenants. It was not to be wondered at, then, that the proprietors of those estates which had remained in the same hands since the Plantation of Ulster felt themselves bound to recognize such usages, and had always recognized the payment for goodwill as well as for improvements; and they would be no more affected by the cautiously framed legislation in the 1st clause of that Bill than a gentleman whose debts of honour were made legal obligations—because, the State having made the land of Ireland liable for both the poor rates and emigration rates, it followed that the usage which recognized compensation for goodwill or for disturbance, in such a way as to lighten the poor rates or the emigration rates, was a just and reasonable usage, and in strict accordance with those principles on which English property, with its liability to support the people on it, had rested for more than two and a-half centuries, or since the 43rd of Elizabeth. The land question of Ireland was not a new one. It had frequently engaged the attention of Parliament; and as far back as 1835 a Bill relating to it was introduced by Mr. Sharman Crawford, whose name would ever remain closely and honourably associated with that important subject. Then came the Bill of 1853, which was withdrawn, the Government of that day, though willing to acknowledge compensation for improvements, not being prepared to acknowledge compensation for goodwill. He might say that all the Bills brought in from that day to this had been given up, because they did not acknowledge Ulster usages. It was not until 1860 that an Act was passed with the object of solving the problem. That legislation, however, as far as tenants' improvements were concerned, had proved a dead letter, mainly owing to the ambiguity of the language used. It provided that nothing in that Act contained should be deemed or construed to affect or prejudice any usages or customs established or existing in any part of Ire-
  326
  land relating to out-going or in-coming tenants—thus giving an implied sanction to that usage. But surely that was an unsatisfactory mode of dealing with a claim which in Ulster alone was represented by millions sterling. That implied sanction might have made it a matter of honour and of estate management to recognize existing usages; but it left things in this peculiar position—that the tenants claiming under such usages had to submit to have their claims decided on solely by the landlord or his agent, from whose decision there was no appeal. That naturally made the tenant frequently reflect on the arbitrary power of the landlord if he chose to exercise it. Though he would shrink—and he was sure their Lordships would shrink—from recommending any legislation which would be likely to lead to litigation between the owners and occupiers of the soil, he had no fear that the power of appeal which was given in the Bill would produce such a disastrous result. There was, he rejoiced to say, as a rule, in Ulster the very best understanding between landlords and tenants; but from various causes—whether from caprice or harshness on the part of the landlord, or from perversity on the part of the tenant—disagreements would arise, and the consequence was that there was not a county in that Province which was free from acts of arbitrary injustice. Surely it was desirable in the interests of all classes that there should be an end to such acts, and that the existing usages should be established on a legal footing. The prosperity of Ulster, as compared with the other two Provinces of Ireland, was frequently attributed to two causes—Protestantism and manfactures. Now upon both these points he should like to say a word. As regarded the Protestantism of Ulster—it was true that the Protestants formed a considerable and influential portion of the population; but the fact was overlooked that the majority of the occupiers of the soil in Ulster were Roman Catholics, and the majority of the owners of the soil were Protestants—much the same state of things as existed in the rest of Ireland, which some would have us believe was an insuperable impediment to any happy relations between landlord and tenant. That was a notion, however, which was completely out of date, and which the experience of Ulster entirely contra-

  327
  dicted. As to the second point—the manufactures of Ulster—let it not be for a moment supposed that he would underrate the enormous advantages which the linen trade had conferred on the Northern Province. Great and undeniable those advantages undoubtedly were—and he, as a participator in them—his own property being situated in a manufacturing district—would wish that they were much greater and more extensive—yet he must say that it was owing neither to Protestantism simply, nor to manufactures simply, nor, indeed, to both combined, that Ulster was happy, prosperous, and contented. That happy state of things was owing to that feeling of security which the tenantry had that they would not be disturbed in their holdings without being paid for their goodwill as well as their improvements. He might go further, and say that if the causes on which the prosperity of Ulster had rested for more than two centuries had existed in the rest of Ireland, we should have found a similar degree of prosperity and contentment. It was owing to the want of such security in the other Provinces that in the years after the famine so much unhappiness was caused by eviction and forced emigration, and that the bitter feeling from which Fenianism had since been engendered had arisen. True it was that evictions were now much rarer than in the years after the famine; but then the public mind was much more sensitive on the subject, and the feeling of discontent was much greater at the failure of the existing law to insure adequate protection. Legislation, which had been a matter for talk in 1866 and 1867, had now become a matter of paramount necessity, and the question for their Lordships to decide was, whether anything was to be done this Session or not. That was truly a momentous question, which he was sure would receive grave consideration from their Lordships. He would earnestly beg that this measure should meet with such a favourable reception at their hands as to insure that before the end of 1870 the Connaughtman, in his little holding by the shores of the Atlantic, might no longer fix his eyes, as he was prone to do, on the Far West as the only quarter from which he could hope to derive comfort or consolation; but that when it was brought home to his mind that the blessings
  328
  which he was enjoying were conferred on him by the British Parliament, he shall be forced to exclaim—"The law may have been strained against me in former times; the law is now rather strained in my favour. Let it be my duty, as it is my interest, to obey the law." And now a few words as to the labourer. The noble Duke who closed the debate on the previous night (the Duke of Abercorn), had expressed his belief that while this measure would give temporary partial contentment to the occupier of the soil, it would place the labourer in a worse position. With all deference to the noble Duke, he held the opposite opinion. He found that in 1868, while the poor rates in Ulster were only 8½d. in the pound, they were in Munster 1s. 2½d. He ventured to think that a system which had produced so much good in Ulster would not be attended with disastrous results to the labourer in Munster. But the special benefit that would be conferred on the agricultural labourer would arise from the increase in the rate of wages, and as his wages increased his status in society would be improved; he might in time have an opportunity of purchasing a farm, and so of coming directly under the advantages of the Bill. He came now to the case of the landowners, and here their Lordships would give him credence when he said that he would not join in any procedure likely to injure that body, for if they were either aggrieved, ruined—nay, robbed, as some said—he must share the same fate. Now, though he was perfectly satisfied to make great sacrifices for Ireland, he was not prepared to become a political martyr. He asked their Lordships to pass this Bill for the benefit of Ireland generally. True, it was, that some of their Lordships in the South and West of Ireland might have to accept some heavy responsibilities, and to incur some charges which were new to them, but not new to the landlords in the North; but he asked them to do so in the hope that before long the Provinces of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught would be, as they ought to be from their better climate and more fertile soil, superior to Ulster. He asked their Lordships to pass this Bill in its present form, because he firmly believed that the Government, in endeavouring to arrive at a solution of this important question, had taken up, not

  329
  the vain ideas of the fevered imagination of political enthusiasts, but rather those usages and customs which had produced in Ulster peace, prosperity, and contentment.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, that after the protracted debate to which their Lordships had already listened, he would endeavour not to repeat any argument which, so far as he knew, had been already addressed to their Lordships. But there remained one argument of great cogency, which he would press with great confidence on the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), because he believed—after the assurance the noble Earl gave last Session, that he would not support any measure involving an invasion of property—that if he (Lord Dunsany) could show that this Bill not only was a great, but in many cases would be—he used the word advisedly—an intolerable invasion of property, the noble Earl would so far modify its provisions as to make it accord with, the promise he had made to the House. It was, perhaps, a disadvantage to Ireland on this occasion that it was divided into North and South. This had been shown very strikingly by the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Abercorn), who last night addressed their Lordships from that side of the House. The noble Duke was naturally supposed to have Conservative views on this Bill; but he spoke from the Ulster point of view; and although he was a great authority, no doubt, as an Ulster landlord, he (Lord Dunsany) certainly could not at all agree in his views. The Bill might be a very good Bill for Ulster; but he did not believe there was any landlord in the South that approved of it. They had very little option in the matter—they were very much in the position of their unfortunate countrymen who were called on the other day to pay ransom; but though they were ready to pay they could not be expected to approve the principle of paying it: they must submit to their fate. The Bill was a very great, though perhaps a necessary evil; and, as circumstances stood, he did not see how Her Majesty's Government could have introduced a better or more moderate measure. But who had created the necessity for it? Who had promoted the agitation that had rendered such a measure necessary? He believed that it was the Liberal party
  330
  who were most to blame—it was they who had excited all this agitation, and the circumstances that had called for it had been created by themselves. There was one argument which had struck him with great force. He would put it in his own way. He would suppose the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), having perfect confidence in the provisions of his own Bill, and having heard a great deal about improving tenants in Ireland, was so fortunate as to secure an Irish tenant on his own property in Staffordshire. The noble Earl might, perhaps, locate him somewhere within sight of his own residence, on a holding of less than £100 a year of rent. After an absence of some months in the discharge of his duties in that House, the noble Earl might, on return to his estate, observe from his windows some hideous excrescences in the shape of cottages which had grown up under the "wigwam" clauses of this Bill. He would naturally inquire what these were, and would be told, they were Mr. O'Rafferty's improvements. He might wish to get rid of the improvements and of the improver; but, under this Bill, he would have to give him 23 months' notice. This simple-minded, ingenuous Irish tenant, who, under this Bill, was restrained, from contracting, would not leave his holding until the notice had expired, and then would demand compensation for those abominations in the shape of improvements; the noble Earl would then probably regard the rights of property in a very different aspect from that in which he viewed them by the light of this Bill. Or, perhaps, the tenant, in the noble Lord's absence, had broken up grass land, in spite of the most stringent covenants to the contrary; if the noble Earl, on his return, complained of this proceeding, in reply to all his complaints, the tenant would refer him to the 4th clause of the Bill. Under the Bill, any tenant would be at liberty to break up grass lands, notwithstanding all agreements or covenants to the contrary. If that was not an invasion of the rights of property, what on earth would constitute an invasion he really did not know. He knew something about grass lands himself; and he assured their Lordships that he would not for £20 an acre allow a tenant to break them up. The value of grass lands in Ireland, as every Irishman knew, de-

  331
  pended on the age of the pastures; this gave them a value which they could acquire from nothing else. So that the Bill gave power to the tenantry to break up, and, in his opinion, absolutely to ruin, the land; and yet this was held to be no invasion of the rights of property. He had always imagined that among the first incidents of property was the right to enter upon one's own land; but the Bill forbade this until a premium of seven years' rent had first been paid. The noble Duke opposite did not deny that this provision involved an infringement of the rights of property; he merely said that other things which had already been sanctioned were also invasions of the rights of property. A habit had grown up of bringing vague and purposeless charges against the Irish landlords. If definite charges were capable of being sustained, by all means let them be advanced; but let them at least be couched in some definite and tangible shape. The argument to be just ought to be in this form—Irish landlords are exceptionally felonious, and, therefore, they require exceptional legislation to restrain them. Merely to say that among the class of Irish owners, there were some few who were dishonest, or drunken, or downright vicious, was what might be said of any other class whatever. In any class there would always be found men who were less honest than the majority. When, however, they came to the actual facts, how did the evidence stand? Why, the evidence showed that the large body of Irish landlords were absolutely exempt from the charges that had been so unjustly brought against them. Irish landlords, as a class, were given to hospitality, and their estates in consequence were often encumbered; and hence it might be supposed that a tendency on their parts to raise the rents was inevitable. But the noble Earl who opened the debate told their Lordships that in no civilized country in Europe were the rents so low as in Ireland. In Mr. Gladstone's speech he had expected to find the most authentic charges that could be brought against the Irish landlords; but though Mr. Gladstone had been pleased to assist the reader by marginal annotations, making it easy to refer to any passage of his speech, all he had been able to find was that, while in Ireland the rents had doubled in about 90 years, in Eng-
  332
  land they had trebled, and in Scotland they had increased six-fold. But so far from these matters being matters of complaint against the Irish landlords, he (Lord Dunsany) looked upon them rather in the light of exculpations. What, again, was the best proof of a man's trustworthiness but the extent to which he was trusted? It had been stated in the present debate—though he thought somewhat erroneously—that, under the existing law, improvements had been made by the tenants chiefly holding under tenancies-at-will, to the extent of no less than £50,000,000. Now, these improvements depended solely upon the honour of the landlord. Another of their greatest exculpations was the inconsistency of the charges made against them. One of the gross inconsistencies of argument upon which this Bill depended was, that no security existed at present, and that, without security, the tenants would not improve; while, in the very same breath, the Bill proposed that all improvements wherever found should be deemed to have been made by the tenant. This reminded him of the old story about the pitcher—that it was cracked when it was borrowed, was whole when it was returned, and, moreover, that it never was borrowed, at all. The reasons advanced in support of the Bill were altogether unsound; at the same time, he was far from saying that no good reasons for passing any measure existed. He knew well that agitation on this subject had been inaugurated by an imprudent speech in South Lancashire, and was capable of being renewed with still greater effect. Nevertheless the same arguments which were used in support of the present Bill, might equally have been advanced in support of a worse measure; and, on the whole, the Ministers, perhaps, were entitled to credit for bringing forward so moderate a Bill—at any rate, he thought they (the Irish landlords) had better be content with what was now offered to them than run the risk of having a worse and more sweeping measure. Her Majesty's Ministers had to please not only their Liberal, but their Ultramontane supporters, and it was one of the evils of party Government in Ireland that the Liberals were supported in Office by men who held in abhorrence every single article of the Liberal creed. The alliance might be profitable, but it was

  333
  hardly safe—for it had led, among other things, to this Bill. Let them veil understand what this Bill was, and not "take a leap in the dark"—let them look it fairly in the face, and recognize the consequences to which it must lead. It was absurd to say that its operation could be limited to 20 years; the part ownership which was now being given to tenants would be no less valuable 20 years hence. Nor would its operation be confined to Ireland. Agrarian agitations grew by concession, and what had been granted to hungry men in Ireland would assuredly be granted to hungry men in England also. If advantages were conferred on Irish tenants, backward in every point of husbandry, how could similar advantages be refused to English tenants, who brought skill, industry, and capital to bear upon their farms? Was it likely that English tenants would be satisfied to go away empty-handed when Irish tenants, on leaving, were to receive a seven years' rental? From the language of their representative in the House of Commons (Mr. Read), their expectations were to be plainly gathered. A Scotch tenant, as a rule, expended 10 times more than any tenant in Ireland. Yet, to a Scotch tenant, nothing was given. Would he be content? It was said that this was not merely an economical question. That was true. It was a political and an agrarian question, and one which would, he feared, attain fearful dimensions hereafter. An English writer had expressed the opinion that no kind of property could be regarded with less respect than landed property; and a French writer said that if you wished to revolutionize a country you must not content yourself with altering political institutions, and he added that in Ireland the aristocracy, by which he meant the landed interest, ought to be suppressed, and then there would be an effectual revolution. Were those wild theories to be inaugurated by the present Bill, which would be the first invasion of the rights of property ever actually passed by that House? He trusted their Lordships were not prepared to go to any such extent—he trusted entirely to the wisdom of their Lordships.
  LORD GREVILLEsaid, that the great grievance of Irish tenants was want of security of tenure. Twenty-five years ago the Devon Commission reported
  334
  that uncertainty of tenure, and want of tenure, had been the great grievance under which Irish tenants laboured. Yet since that time nothing had been done to remedy the grievance with which the Bill proposed to deal. He entirely agreed with the opinion of the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Earl Granville), in introducing this Bill that there was something in the principle of tenant-right which was congenial to the traditions and ideas of the Irish people. It was a custom which was well understood by them, which recommonded itself to them, which had produced the best relations between landlord and tenant wherever it existed, and it was that which had made Ulster present a most favourable contrast to the rest of Ireland. Much might be said both for and against the custom—but this must be remembered, that Ireland was not a new country, nor could you necessarily introduce there with success a system which might have worked well under different circumstances elsewhere. Tenant-right was a custom which had worked well in Ireland, and which was well understood. Could anything be easier than to recognize and legalize that custom? After all, the wisest legislation was but the embodiment in a statute of common law and of custom, and he thought the Government had done wisely in legalizing the Ulster custom, and he regretted that they had not extended it to the rest of Ireland, for, in his opinion, that would have been a complete and satisfactory settlement of the question. A noble Lord who spoke the other evening from the Treasury Benches (Lord Dufferin) said—
  "If I were to be called upon to define the custom of tenant-right, I should describe it as a privilege acquired by certain tenants-at-will of Ulster and elsewhere to sell their interest in their farms, whether that interest represents improvements or any other marketable incident of occupation, under the same conditions as those under which they purchased it."
  Well, this was exactly what he (Lord Greville) believed was understood by tenant-right in Ireland; it was that which the tenants would accept, and which he regretted was not to be extended. Under that custom Ulster had been prosperous, the landlord was sure of his rent, the tenant was sure of remaining in his occupation as long as he paid his rent; or, if he left his farm, he received full compensation for his im-

  335
  provements as well as for his interest in the land. The custom had proved its strength in the past, and it would be equally strong in the future, whatever efforts might be made to put an end to it. It was like the over-regulation price of commissions in the army. You might abolish tenant-right to-day, but it would rise again to-morrow, for so engrafted was it in the Irish mind that you could not possibly get rid of it. He repeated, therefore, that the Government had acted wisely in legalizing the custom where it existed, and he regretted that that they had not extended it. It had had been objected that purchasers in the Landed Estates Court were interfered with most unjustly by this Bill. He could not see that at all. It appeared to him that purchasers in the Landed Estates Court were purchasers with notice. They knew that this question was pending. It had now been agitated for 25 years. Different Governments on different sides of the House had agreed that something should be done in order to give security to tenants; and, therefore, these persons bought their estates with the knowledge that there would be legislation on the subject, and that one day or other, sooner or later, a change would be made. Besides, while a Parliamentary title was the best title in the world against persons claiming a prior title, it did not alter the position of the landlord as to the tenants who were named in the conveyance; nor as to the State, which had the right to impose the same taxation upon purchasers in the Landed Estates Court as upon all other landowners, and to subject them to the same legislation. That being so, he did not think these purchasers had any claim to exceptional treatment. It must be remembered, also, that they differed from the landlords whom they superseded. The old landlords in Ireland, with all their faults—their want of thrift, their extravagance, and improvidence—had some feeling for their tenants. There was a constant interchange of good offices between the two classes; the landlords took what rent they could get; they were not intent upon rack - renting their tenants or driving them forth upon the world to perish; but the purchasers in the Landed Estates Court had, in too many instances, invested their money purely as a commercial speculation; they
  336
  looked upon it as an investment for capital, and they had no consideration for the tenants; they frequently raised the rents beyond what the tenants were able to pay, and in some instances they had actually turned out tenants who were well able to pay, without compensation for improvements made by the tenants, for the purpose of taking the land into their own hands. Their object, in short, was to exact the highest rents they could possibly obtain. As he did not wish this statement to rest upon his own authority, he would refer to the Report of the Inspectors. Dr. Brodie quoted the words of the owner of a considerable property in the Galway Union, who said there were "enough of cases to cause discontent and to prevent improvements." A nobleman who owned estates in several counties, testified by the simple answer "Yes" that there were many instances in which the tenants had lost the value of their improvements through evictions or disproportionate increase of rents. He then referred to what had occurred under purchases of land in the Encumbered and Landed Estates Court, and said—
  "Upon no other point is the testimony of al-classes so unanimous as that the greatest hardships, both as regards evictions and exorbitant increase of rents, have been inflicted by purchasers in these Courts. Public opinion in their regard has undergone a great revulsion, and what was some time since praised as a boon is now decried as an evil, both on account of the injustice suffered by tenants at the hands of the new owners and the present embittered feelings of the occupiers of land against the existing land laws. Many of the purchasers in these Courts were land agents or deputy agents, farmers, shopkeepers, and attorneys. Some few were theorists, many more were speculators. The eager desire to become proprietors of land for social distinction, profit, &c., induced men to purchase more than they could pay for, and loans became a necessity. One of this class of purchasers in my district borrowed £20,000 from an insurance company. With the speculative purchasers increase of rents, as far as could be borne, was made to provide for interest on cash and loans, and for the discharge of debts incurred. Under purchases of the description mentioned evictions or exorbitant increase of rents ensued. In the present state of public opinion it seems a matter of surprise and regret that the Legislature took no heed of the rights or interests of the tenants on the estates to which the jurisdiction of the Encumbered and Landed Estates Court applied."
  In a report by Dr. Roughan it was stated—
  "The instances in which tenants have lost the value of their improvements by reason of a disproportionate increase of rents are very numerous.

  337
  When new purchasers come in they, as a general rule, stripe, re-set the lands, and raise the rents to such an extent as to deprive the tenants altogether of the value of their labour. Within the last 17 or 18 years five-sixths of the properties in the Unions of Oughterard and Clifden, extending over an area of 305,710 statute acres, have changed owners. The Ballynahinch Estates, the territory of the Martins, have been purchased by a wealthy London corporation. The rents at the time of the purchase, as I am informed, amounted to £8,000 or £9,000 a year. One-third of those estates so purchased, or more, have since been resold to different parties, and yet the tenants on the remaining unsold portion now pay a rental of some thousands a year in excess of the rent paid in the first year after the purchase on the entire estate."
  He (Lord Greville) did not think that such purchasers had any very great claim on the consideration of Parliament. With regard to the 3rd clause, he hoped the Government would not allow the Schedule to be tampered with, but that they would adhere to it in its integrity. It was said to be very wrong to interfere with contracts; but there were other things which were also wrong, and among them was to allow a landlord—to use an expression which had been employed by the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary—"feloniously" to appropriate the property of others. In Ireland, as a general rule, the landlord merely let the land, while the tenant erected the dwelling-house and the farm buildings, which gave increased value to the land; and what right, then, had the landlord to insist on claiming for himself extreme proprietory rights, without allowing them to be mitigated by equity and the custom of the country? It was often said that if the Irish tenant were more industrious he would be better off; but how could he be expected to be more industrious, when he knew that if he expended labour and money on his farm he must do so without the certainty of being repaid, as he might be evicted at six months' notice? He would here quote the words of a noble Lord, now no more, who was an Irishman and well acquainted with the circumstances of Ireland. In 1855 Lord Palmerston, on the second reading of the Tenants' Compensation Bill, which contained a clause giving retrospective and prospective compensation, said—
  "The tenantry of Ireland, when they receive encouragement and have reason to believe that their exertions will meet with a due reward, are as much inclined to industrious exertion as the tenantry of any part of the world. Sir, the evils of Ireland are to be traced to the history of Ire-
  338
  land. What is that history? Why, it is the history of civil war; of rebellion; of confiscation; of wholesale and violent transfers of land from class to class; of penal laws; of the exclusion of the largest class of the nation from the ordinary privileges of social existence; of the domination of a small minority professing one religion over a large majority professing another; of laws which aggravated those animosities which political and social inequalities were, of course, of themselves calculated to produce."—[3 Hansard, cxxxviii. 168.]
  Those words were spoken in 1855, and he (Lord Greville) was entitled to quote them in favour of the present Bill. The Government had already removed one of the grievances referred to by Lord Palmerston, and they now proposed by the present Bill to restrict the power of capricious eviction, which had been the bane of Ireland; and that this Bill would put an end to it was the opinion expressed by one of the ablest advocates of the tenant class in the debates in the other House. In this hope he should give the second reading his hearty support, and he trusted that the measure would not be returned to the House of Commons in a less favourable state than it had been received from that House, so that the effect of this legislation might be to improve the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, and to convince the Irish people that the Imperial Legislature was not indisposed to do them full justice.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMopposed the second reading of the Bill, which was only another step in the process of spoliation which had been commenced by the Irish Church Bill. He denied that the agitation in favour of this Bill had originated in Ireland. It had originated not in Ireland, but in this country, and was got up for the purpose of keeping the present Ministers in their places. He wished to throw back upon the speeches made by noble Lords on the Ministerial side of the House the whole odium of agitation. What was the speech of the noble Earl who had introduced the Bill but the speech of an agitator? The noble Earl recommended this Bill to the acceptance of the House on the ground that the laws of Ireland were made by strangers. Was the noble Earl going to join the Fenians?—or, what course did he intend to take? He heard with astonishment such a statement from a Peer who was one of Her Majesty's Advisers—although it would be an extraordinary one to be made by any Member of their

  339
  Lordships' House. The noble Earl followed up that argument by appealing to the Reports of the Poor Law Inspectors—a description of evidence which had been very variously used; because, on one side, those Reports had been quoted for the purpose of showing that the landlords were bad and the tenants all that was good, and, by the other, that the landlords were not so bad as they were represented to be and the tenants much worse. The noble Lord who had last addressed the House had stated that, in his opinion, the evils of Ireland—from which Ireland was suffering—were in a great measure to be attributed to the disasters the tenants were suffering owing to the Encumbered Estates Act—a statement which must have been very gratifying to the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He (the Earl of Leitrim) regarded that Act as one of the most formidable inroads that ever had been made on the rights of property, and its effects had been to ruin a great number of landlords and tenants, besides injuring the money market. These disasters had been foreseen from the very first. It was impossible to estimate the amount of injury that had been done by that Act, which was always regarded in Ireland as one of confiscation, and looked upon with horror and detestation. The evils of that measure had been foretold, and every prudent man could see the injury that would be inflicted on the country by this Bill, though to what extent could not be imagined. Much reliance had been placed on the Reports of the Poor Law Inspectors; yet how were those Reports obtained? All the examination into the iniquity of landlords, and their oppression of the tenantry, was carried on throughout the country and finished in the space of six weeks. Was that right or honest? Would it be proper for their Lordships to legislate on information obtained in such a summary manner, and on statements which were gross misrepresentations of the facts? He could point to several allegations in the Reports, all of which were perfectly untrue, and were simple slanders. He himself had 300 men in his employment, and during the whole of last winter he had 400. Passing on to the speech of the Lord Privy Seal, who complained bitterly that there was no employment for the people of Ireland save agriculture, he asked, why did not that noble
  340
  Earl recommend to Parliament some works by which the Irish people would receive some portion of the Imperial taxation, which was almost all expended in England? Nearly the only persons employed under the Crown in Ireland were the policemen. The Government had no dockyards in that country, and the citizens of Dublin did not even receive any of those geraniums on which so much of the public money was spent in the parks of London. It was not right or fair that a Member of the Government should taunt the Irish proprietors with not finding employment for the people, and should make that a paltry excuse for introducing a Bill of this description. Another noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) had attacked the Irish landlords, and the Foreign Secretary had also talked of them as felonious landlords. The first of those noble Earls himself received the rents of his Irish property and spent them in London. He (the Earl of Leitrim) knew that the common opinion in Ireland—he might be in a cloud—but he knew that the common opinion in Ireland was that the landlord who lived amongst his tenantry and spent his income among them was the best landlord. Moreover, if the noble Earl talked what he had himself done, he (the Earl of Leitrim) might be permitted, to say that it was to that noble Earl's blunders and mistakes when Prime Minister that much of the horrors and miseries of the Irish famine of 1846 were owing. It was, therefore, particularly unbecoming in those noble Earls to bring vituperative accusations against Irish landlords. He now came to the Bill itself, the injustice of which he would endeavour to point out. To every part of the Bill, from the title downwards, he objected. If properly designated it would be called a "Bill to create discord in Ireland and to exterminate the small tenantry." If his Satanic Majesty had wished to invent a plan for setting people by the ears, he could not have hit on a better device for the purpose than that measure. Not even Mr. Gladstone himself could have done it. A more pernicious arrangement than that in the 3rd clause he could not imagine. In order to improve certain estates it was necessary to disturb the tenants; but such improvements would be rendered simply impossible under the provisions of that Bill. He was not for

  341
  getting rid of the small tenants; he had increased their numbers on his own property, but he could not have done that under this measure, with its extraordinary and unjust scale of compensation—they were such as would prevent any attempt at improvement on the estates. If the Bill passed into law the evil would be perpetuated to all eternity. He did not envy the Irish landlord who attempted to effect improvements on his estates by turning out the tenants and paying them that scale of compensation; and he certainly would not do it himself. It was only with a view to put lands into workable order that so many notices to quit were given; and it was a singular thing that when the Poor Law Inspectors were asked to state how these notices to quit were carried out, they declined to give the information. It was found, however, from other quarters that, to a great extent, they had not been carried out at all. As to compensation for improvements, the proposal had been so controverted in that House that, as he understood, it was only a little policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government to introduce it, that their Lordships might have the satisfaction of throwing it out. He could not imagine that their Lordships would ever agree to reverse the ordinary Law of Contract between landlord and tenant; if they did, it would be infinitely worse for the tenant than for the landlord, nor could anything be more destructive to the interests of society. The whole stability of society depended on keeping the tenant clear of the intricacies of the law. He was quite aware that many of his own acts had been criticized; but, proceeding on the advice of the ablest lawyers, he had followed the practice of making it distinctly clear to his tenants what they were liable to, and the consequence was that he kept them perfectly free from the hands of attorneys. He had been accused of making very arbitrary agreements with his tenants. But, however they might sound, in practice they were not arbitrary, for he had never asked his tenants for a single penny of rent but once in the year, and he believed that was not a thing very commonly done. He felt very strongly on this subject, and if their Lordships in their wisdom should think proper to withdraw from the landlord the power of entering into contracts with his tenants, he must express the
  342
  opinion that it would be the cause of the greatest dissension, and would prove destructive to the tenants' interests. He proposed that all the clauses to be tried under this Act should be tried by the Chairman of Quarter Sessions in open Court in the county town. He hoped their Lordships would most carefully consider this question. It was one of the greatest importance, and he believed his proposal would be found most convenient for the country. With regard to the system of advances no wise man would take advantage of it. He looked with much jealousy on any new power given to the Government in Ireland—they had too much power already. It would be used for political purposes. They talked of capricious evictions and capricious acts on the part of landlords; but the capricious acts of the Government would be infinitely worse than all the capricious acts of all the landlords in Ireland. He hoped their Lordships would throw out the clause relative to notices to quit. It was contrary to the Act of Union. The provisions as to the payment of county cess were a mere sham. The money must all come out of the land; and, if the landlord paid the cess in the first instance, the tenant would have to pay it in the shape of higher rent. As to the argument that this Bill ought to pass because of the frightful agrarian crimes that had been committed of late, he believed that the most dangerous consequences would result from any such line of action. It was said that those murders were so cleverly committed that they could not be detected. In many cases they were committed within a comparatively short distance of the police barracks, and yet they remained undiscovered. Was an Irishman, because he were a green coat and lived in a police barrack, less likely to make a guess at the truth and follow it out successfully than others who lived in the same neighbourhood and generally had a very clear idea upon the probabilities in the particular case. He had lived in parts of the country which had been disturbed and were now tranquil, and he could assure noble Lords that there was no pleasure attaching to residence in quarters where life was imperilled, and were roofs were nightly in danger of being fired. But he must say that he believed information would be much more readily forthcoming if it

  343
  were not for the belief that, sooner or later, communications made in confidence to the police were by them brought to light. Policemen also were known to retire, having saved out of their pay sums of money which it would be out of the power of soldiers to accumulate. Districts, also, which had been proclaimed, and in which extra police had been sanctioned, were constantly relieved from those extra police without any such proclamation being issued by the Lord Lieutenant as the Act directed, declaring that those districts had ceased to be in a state of disturbance. It might suit the purpose of a negligent Government and an inactive police that a Bill of this kind should be passed; but he felt bound to express his opinion that it was calculated to create more discord and disturbance than any Act which he had ever known to be brought forward.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELDsaid, he was unable to understand the arguments of the noble Earl who had just sat down (the Earl of Leitrim)—in fact, his speech had convinced him of the necessity of exceptional legislation for Ireland, by showing the difficulties with which Irish landlords had to contend in the management of their estates. The noble Earl told the House that one effect of the Bill would be to make it impossible for landlords to make improvements on their estates, because it was impossible to make improvements without disturbing the tenants. According to the noble Earl, too, there existed in Ireland such a state of things as rendered it necessary in many cases for the landlords to serve upon their tenants notices to quit. In reply to that portion of the noble Earl's speech, he might say that the clause in the Bill which provided that notices to quit should be stamped was, in his belief, framed to meet the case of the noble Earl, because, if what he had heard was correct, it was the noble Earl himself who was in the habit of printing notices to quit on the back of his receipts for rent.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM: I can assure the noble Earl that it is not so.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELDwould of course accept the denial of the noble Earl; but he must at the same time remark that nothing could prove the necessity for exceptional legislation in Ireland more than the difficulties which, as the noble Earl stated, landlords in Ire-
  344
  land encountered. Although he hoped that this Bill would be passed with as little delay as possible, and with very little material alteration in its principle; yet, as the Bill might hereafter be made a precedent for legislation in England and Scotland, it was most necessary that the landlords in this country should carefully examine into its provisions. Now, he could not help saying that there were some clauses of the Bill which, in his opinion, would give rise to injustice in some cases; which in others would create fresh causes of discontent in Ireland, and in others would give rise to so much, misunderstanding, as to the intentions of Parliament, as must lead to a great deal of litigation. The first objection he had to take had reference to the Ulster tenant-right, which it was proposed by this Bill to legalize;—and he might remark that he had carefully listened, but in vain, throughout the debate for a satisfactory definition of that custom. They had been told that it was the right which the tenant had to receive back the money which he had paid for his holding; but upon what grounds was that right purchased? His own idea of what the Ulster tenant-right was, was that it represented the value of the difference between the actual value of the farm and the actual rent paid, plus the improvements which had been made by the tenant. If that was a correct definition the principle appeared to him to be very objectionable, and he maintained that it was entirely inconsistent with the principle upon which compensation for loss of occupation was given under Clause 3; because under the Ulster tenant-right the higher the rent the less the tenant got for his occupation, whereas under Clause 3 the higher the rent the greater would be the sum received by the tenant on giving up possession. Upon one point he should be glad to receive some information. Would the grant of a 31 years' lease by the landlord extinguish the Ulster custom in the way it extinguished the right to compensation for loss of occupation, under Clause 3? He entirely approved the principle upon which compensation was to be awarded for loss of occupation but he was not satisfied with the manner in which it was sought to be carried into effect. If there was one distinction to be more clearly drawn than another in making out a case for exceptional legis-

  345
  lation for Ireland, which was not to be applied to this country, it was, that in Ireland the improvements were made by the tenant, whereas, in England they were for the most part made by the landlord; and as this Bill would be sure to be made a precedent for legislation in this country, he thought that this broad distinction should have been kept in view. In the first instance he had been disposed to think that compensation for loss of occupation should be confined to those cases in which it could be clearly shown that the improvements had been made by the tenant; but the culpable delay of Parliament in dealing with this question had convinced him that they would have to go much further. At the same time, it would be proper to state clearly that the compensation given was not to include anything which would represent the interest upon any outlay made by the landlord. With regard to the scale proposed in the Bill, he had little to object to it, though he thought it would have been better had it been more gradual. He could not, however, at all join with those who objected to the tenant in the higher scale claiming under a lower one, because frequently the withholding of this permission would be the cause of injustice. If each class were restricted to their own scale, a man paying £41 a year rent would only have been able to obtain £123 in the way of compensation, whereas the tenant of a holding of £40 annual value could have obtained £160. The discouragement held out against the subdivision of farms, which would be one of the practical effects of the 3rd clause, was a principle he strongly approved, because he believed nothing created so much mischief to agriculture in Ireland as this constant subdivision; but he did not approve the manner in which the practice was to be discouraged. He could not help thinking that where subdivision had hitherto been made contrary to the express wishes of the landlord—in some cases contrary to the absolute rules of the estate, rules with which the tenant was perfectly familiar—the Court ought in such cases to be compelled to take the fact into consideration, even if the result were to deprive the tenant of his right to compensation. There was in the clause another provision by which it was intended to give encouragement to the building of labourers' cottages. In this
  346
  country he would give every encouragement for the purpose of carrying out that object; but he was afraid that the proposal in the Bill was not only likely to fail in its intended purpose, but that it would actually work great mischief. It appeared to him that it would give encouragement to the very thing which by a previous sentence in the Bill it was attempted to discourage—namely, subletting. It seemed to him that by the recognition of holdings of 25 acres, an inducement was given to tenants of 100 acres to subdivide their farms into four holdings, on which they would run up miserable hovels, for the occupation of their relatives or the labourers they employed. Moreover, unless some rule were laid down as to the mode in which the cottages were to be built, these cottages would be erections of the most miserable description; and in case of the tenant-farmer being removed from his holding, there would then be greater discontent and greater cause for it, on the part of the labourers living in these cottages, than was now felt by the tenants. The next clause giving compensation for improvements done by the tenant was after all one of the most important clauses of the Bill. No one more desired than himself that full compensation should be given to the tenant for any outlay he might have made on his farm; but he thought any legislation on the subject ought to be closely watched; and he observed in the clause a provision for giving compensation for the reclamation of waste land, which he was disposed to think would give rise to endless litigation. It would be impossible to prove who reclaimed the land, when it was done, or who did it. He had taken a good deal of trouble to get a definition of what was meant by reclamation of waste land but had failed. The only solution of the difficulty in his estimation would be found in the interpretation of a friend of his, who had suggested that all land valued according to the Irish valuation above 5s. an acre would be a very good guide to take as land for which the tenant ought to be compensated upon the principle of reclamation. As the wording of the clause dealing with this subject stood, he was afraid that there was a danger of the claim for compensation on account of reclamation going back beyond a reasonable limit. His own opinion was that tenants of mode-

  347
  rate expectations would be quite well satisfied if the claim were to be limited to the period of his own lifetime or to a period of 20 years. Another important provision, effected an alteration in the law with respect to the maker of improvements. He had no objection to the principle that in Ireland the presumption should be that the tenant had made the improvements; but the clause, as at present worded, made it almost unnecessary to provide himself with any evidence on the point. In his opinion it ought to be, if possible, matter of evidence, and failing evidence, both on the part of landlord and tenant, then the presumption should be, as was proposed by this Bill, on the side of the tenant. With regard, to the provision respecting contracts, it appeared strange to him that power was not allowed the Court to give effect to a contract which was reasonable. He inferred from the 3rd clause that the framers of the Bill were unwilling to interfere with the freedom of contract, for it was there stated that any ejectment for non-payment of rent should not be deemed disturbance of the tenant by act of the landlord, unless the Court decided that it ought, on special grounds, so to be deemed in the case of a person claiming compensation on the determination by such ejectment of a tenancy existing at the time of the passing of the Act, and continuing to exist without any alteration of rent up to the time of such determination. The effect of those words would be simply to make every landlord raise his rent in order to get rid of the discretion of the Court in reference to his case. With respect to the payment of the county cess, he must say that if the provision was intended to apply to yearly tenants not disturbed in any way by the act of the landlord, and whose tenancy continued without any interruption, then, if they were exempted from paying the county cess, the landlord ought to have the power to recoup himself. There was another point which he regarded as important—namely, that the words "becomes an occupier" would include the case of a person who took a farm under an assignment; and as to that matter, he was of opinion that a tenant ought not to be allowed to assign without the consent of his landlord. Of that part of the Bill which established a system of arbitration, he approved very strongly. As an English landlord he
  348
  believed there was nothing which would tend more to improve the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland, and the condition of agriculture in that country, than a recognized system of arbitration under which all disputes could be settled. His only regret was, that some better machinery was not provided for carrying it into effect—such as the appointment of arbitrators—because there was at present no recognized person to whom an appeal could be made, thereby preventing the various decisions which were given by the arbitrators to whom cases were now referred being effectual. As to that section of the Bill which related to the sale of land, he cordially joined with those who had expressed their general approval of the principles which guided its framers. He had not any great hope that it would effect much in the direction in which it was intended to act; but he felt it to be of the greatest importance that there should be as large a class as possible connected with the land by stronger ties than those of mere occupancy. He heartily supported the principle of that part of the Bill; but he would be sorry to see any such artificial system carried beyond a mere experiment. It was improbable that that part of the Bill would be acted upon to any extent, and certainly the framers of the measure did not expect that it would, or a larger sum of money for carrying out its provisions would have been proposed by them. Of the objections which had been made to the Bill, he most of all regretted those which were to the effect that landlords would in future be inclined to deal harshly with their tenants. Remembering how long this question had been trifled with by Parliament, and that 35 or 40 years had elapsed since every man of common sense had come to the conclusion that this question must be dealt with, and that up to this time nothing had been done except to disappoint the hopes that had been repeatedly held out that some alteration would be made, he felt that if this measure failed it would not be owing to the nature of the Bill, but to the lateness of the period at which this concession was offered. He was convinced that there would be under this Bill both good and bad landlords as there had been up to the present time, though the great majority would carry out the provisions of

  349
  the Bill with a desire for the good of that country. He had confidence that the Bill would be accepted by the people of Ireland in the spirit in which it was offered, and the result, he hoped, would be to give greater content and prossperity to the people, and to satisfy the landlords by increasing the value of their property, and the amount of their rents.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down (the Earl of Lichfield). He is the first Member of your Lordships' House who, from the Ministerial side, has spoken of the Bill as being of any concern to the English landowner, except as a measure for the pacification of Ireland. He has called attention to it as a precedent that must be followed in reference to the relations of landlord and tenant in England and Scotland, and thus identified the interests of the landlords throughout the United Kingdom, in the consideration of the measure before the House. I regret that I cannot take the same favourable view of the Bill that he does. I see, on the contrary, so much that is objectionable in it, both in principle and detail, that should my noble Friend who has moved the Amendment divide the House, I shall feel it my duty to vote against the Bill. When I heard, at the opening of the Session, that Her Majesty's Government had decided upon introducing a Land Bill, after the many failures of preceding Governments to produce one satisfactory to the country, I ventured to hope, notwithstanding the general impression to the contrary, that however it might be criticized in detail, its principle would be mainly the common good, without wrong or injustice to any class of the community; that its tendency would be to draw closer the union of landlord and tenant in the fulfilment of the duty they both owe to the country of developing the resources of the soil; and that their mutual relations, where they have been misunderstood, would be placed upon a footing more conducive to the peace and well-being of Ireland. In this confidence I awaited the Bill that has now come up to your Lordships, elaborated from the House of Commons, and until it was thus perfected I did not look into its provisions; but, having now examined them with care, and listened attentively to all that has been said in
  350
  support of them, I am, under a deep sense of disappointment, compelled to dissent from nearly the whole of the Bill. I find it to be what, in fact, the Lord Privy Seal on Tuesday evening described it—simply a new sacrifice to Irish disaffection; and that, too, as he admits, of very doubtful success. Lest I should appear to be overstating the admissions of the noble Earl, I beg to quote to your Lordships his words, as reported in The Times and Morning Post, which are in perfect accordance with my recollection of them. Referring to the disaffection that had so often prevailed, even after measures of conciliation, the noble Earl said—
  "When you find chronic disaffection in Ireland, you are bound to try to remedy it, and to shrink from no sacrifices until you have removed the cause of disaffection. I acknowledge the failure of past efforts by this country to remove it. Successive Governments have met with the same failure. But Englishmen are not to be permanently baffled. Parliament showed last year that it would not shrink from sacrifices in the effort to remove disaffection in Ireland, and I hope the same spirit will be shown now. He would, no doubt, be a sanguine man who would prophesy the result of any measure in Ireland. It is possible that this Bill, like others, may fail; but I augur well of its success from the tone of the debate upon it in this and in the other House of Parliament."
  I totally differ from the noble Earl, and hold that Parliament is not justified in making sacrifices of the institutions of the country to conciliate the disaffected. But what are the provisions of the measure before the House? My Lords, you have before you simply a Bill of pains and penalties against the landlords of Ireland, unwarranted by anything they have done, uncalled for by any necessity, and calculated to produce jealousy and ill-will, and to stir up ruinous litigation between landlord and tenant. It takes from the landlord the power of making those arrangements in the disposition of his land and the selection of his tenants upon which agricultural prosperity so much depends, and depriving him of this power it necessarily removes from him also the responsibility he has, especially of late years, cheerfully acknowledged, of promoting agricultural improvements. Anything that checks a cordial co-operation of landlord and tenant in such works, must necessarily be injurious to the interests of the community. The tenant cannot drain his low and wet land unless the landlord provides for him the main or arterial

  351
  drain; he cannot, without the landlord's assistance, erect suitable farm-house and offices, nor make the outlay necessary for fencing and dividing the farm; nor will the village road be properly laid out and maintained, without the intervention and authority of the landlord. Under this Bill any one tenant may frustrate the efforts of the landlord to provide the roads that may be requisite for the convenience of a numerous tenantry. Those who can recollect what the country was above 30 years ago, and will compare it with what it is now, will acknowledge that the movement of the landlords of Ireland, that was then headed by my noble Friend the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Leinster), at that time Ireland's only Duke, for the establishment of agricultural societies, was the inauguration of a new era in the history of Irish agriculture. There has ever since been a progress of improvement in husbandry—whether in the cultivation of the land or in the kind of stock that is reared upon it—greatly conducive to the material wealth of the country; while the condition of the rural population generally has been further elevated by the attention that has of late years been given to the construction of good farmsteads, and of dwellings for the labouring classes. And the tenant-farmers from having been for the most part extremely poor, where industrious are well off; and when desirous of emigrating, or for any other reason of giving up their farm, are enabled to claim compensation for improvements, a claim which a landlord rarely, if ever, refuses, but which I am decidedly of opinion the tenant should have secured to him by law. My Lords, on this subject—the claim of an out-going tenant to be compensated for his improvements—the noble Duke on the Treasury Bench (the Duke of Argyll) last evening taunted a noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) on this side of the House with inconsistency in finding fault with the Government for interfering with the rights of property, by giving the tenant a pecuniary right against his landlord for mere disturbance, while he advocated the claim of the tenant to be compensated for improvements. I do not think the noble Duke's animadversions were just. There is, no doubt, a legal right in the landlord to receive back his land with all the permanent improvements effected upon it as if they
  352
  were his own; but the tenant has an equitable or rather a moral claim to be compensated for the improvements he has made, and this no landlord disputes. To declare, therefore, that claim to be a legal one, can scarcely, under the circumstances, be regarded as an invasion of the rights of property; whereas nobody can question that the rights of property will be seriously affected by the enactment of the 3rd clause of this Bill. I must complain of the injustice of the noble Duke's reflections upon the landlords of Ireland. Instead of referring to the state of the country at the present day, he went back to find accusation against them to the Report of the Devon Commission, made about 35 years ago. That Report, no doubt, proclaimed a state of things with regard to the agricultural population that was very distressing; but it was well known, and admitted, to have been the result of over-population that had arisen from the excessive sub-dividing and sub-letting of farms held by lease, and which the landlords had no power of preventing. As leases have fallen in this evil has been remedied; but oppression on the part of the landlords there was not, and the fact is generally well attested that the rents paid for land in Ireland are lower than those in any other country in Europe. Having heard this repeatedly stated, I think it right to observe that to some extent this must be attributable to, what has been also much dwelt upon, the fact that in general the tenant builds his own house and makes his own fences. Let me say a few words on the subject of the Ulster tenant-right. Your Lordships have heard it variously spoken of in the course of this debate; but I think the opinions of none are entitled to so much weight as those of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy (Lord Dufferin). No one could be better acquainted with the subject than he is, and no one would be more desirous, if in his power, to speak of it in terms of commendation. But he showed most conclusively that in principle the system was adverse to the improvement of agriculture; a system that no man, having regard to the necessity of the outlay of capital in the development of the resources of the soil, would desire to see generally established. It is strange that your Lordships should be called upon to legalize a system which a Member of the

  353
  Government, though an advocate of the Bill, has so plainly shown to be objectionable. Noble Lords are, I believe, very much carried away with the notion that because the people of the North are prosperous, tenant-right is the cause of their prosperity. My Lords, it is to other circumstances, and not to the principle of tenant-right, that the prosperity of Ulster is owing. The energetic character of the Northerns, by which trade, commerce, and manufacturing industry have grown up, is generally admitted. The growth of flax, its management in all its different stages, and the unrivalled skill with which the manufacture of linens in every branch is carried on, secure to the industrious tenant, though he may have entered into possession of his farm after having expended the whole of his capital in the purchase of the tenant-right, a remunerative return from the produce of his land in a great measure independent of any pecuniary outlay in its cultivation. Not so would it be if the lands were under pasture, as to a great extent they are in the West and South of Ireland. There the tenant must have capital with which to stock his land in order to turn it to account. I therefore consider the endeavour in this Bill to extend the principle of the Ulster tenant-right to the rest of Ireland as most mischievous. Although the 3rd clause is the most important in the Bill, I will not trouble your Lordships with many words upon it. I will only say that if the Government and Parliament are clearly satisfied that the disturbed state of Ireland has been owing to an abuse of the rights of property by the capricious evictions of tenants from their holding it is their duty to interfere. If such cases exist at all I believe they are very rare, but should undoubtedly be discouraged. I therefore admit that, though it may involve an interference with the strict rights of property, some compensation should be awarded on the principle of this clause to a tenant capriciously removed from his holding for such disturbance. I must, however, protest against a confiscation of the landlord's property for the purpose to the needless extent which is proposed in this clause—namely, awarding to the great majority of the tenants in Ireland, as the price of disturbance from their holdings, seven years' purchase of the fee simple,
  354
  in addition to full compensation for outlay in improvements upon the farm; and, as the scale of compensation is made to reach to classes of tenants who never have been subject to capricious treatment by their landlords, I trust your Lordships will not consent to so great a wrong against the proprietors of land in Ireland as would be involved in your adoption of the clause as proposed. I have already noticed and expressed my assent to the principle of full compensation being given to an out-going tenant for his bonâ fide improvements upon the farm. But to the next clause, which would substantially take from the landlord his property and interest in his own improvements, and transfer them to the tenant, to have him compensated for them as if he had executed them at his own expense, unless the landlord can prove the contrary, I trust the House will not consent; it would not only be to rob the landlord of what rightly and equitably belongs to him, but to impose a penalty on every improving landlord for having laid out money in the improvement of his estate. Few landlords keep an exact record of what they so lay out. The accounts of architects, surveyors and contractors, and of expenditure in labour, are commonly destroyed at the end of seven years, beyond which time the Statute of Limitations renders it unnecessary to keep them. So that, except where the landlord's expenditure upon the holdings of his tenantry had been made through the Board of Works, there would seldom, be documentary evidence available for him to disprove the unfair assumption that every improvement upon the farm had been executed by the tenant. The effect of this clause would be to encourage tenants to prefer false claims for compensation, to which I trust your Lordships will not assent. The proposition in a later part of the Bill of creating a tenant proprietary has been variously viewed. Although I am of opinion that extensive properties, under able management, are by far more conducive to agricultural improvement than small properties, the owners of which can rarely be brought to act together, where in the making of roads and arterial drains a general co-operation is necessary, I think the facilities afforded by the Bill for the tenant to purchase, when his landlord is disposed to sell, will have some advantages. The Bill is not

  355
  likely to operate to any great extent in this matter; but so far as it might operate it would be beneficial. Those who would become purchasers would probably be the most thrifty and improving occupiers of the soil; and knowing, as I do, the intense attachment of the Irish peasant to the place of his birth, I cannot but think that the opening afforded for acquiring, under certain circumstances, ownership in the land will be regarded generally by the Irish tenantry as a great boon. Having regard to the contentment of the country, it must be recollected that one of the Members of Her Majesty's present Government, not long ago, went over to Ireland on a political mission, and there held language of a nature to raise the most extravagant expectations regarding a transfer of the property of the land to the tenants in occupation. Altogether to disappoint expectations held out, however imperfectly, from such a quarter, could not fail to excite a very great amount of discontent; and the Government that did not at once disavow the views of Mr. Bright were bound in honour—as I think Parliament would be upon grounds of public policy—to facilitate to the tenantry of Ireland, by this Bill, their becoming, as opportunities offer, the purchasers of the lands on which they have resided. Their opportunities of doing so may be few; but where they do present themselves, the option of purchasing the holding instead of becoming tenant to a stranger, between whom and himself there may be little sympathy, will be highly valued. I wish I could speak with the same approval of other parts of the Bill; but it is fraught with so much of injustice, and generally pregnant with such mischievous consequences, that I am compelled to vote against it; and I must add that its introduction avowedly as a measure to conciliate the disaffected is the following up of a policy alike injurious to the interests of the country and discreditable to the British Government. Last year you were dealing with the Fenian conspiracy. Did your sacrifice of the Protestant Church in Ireland mitigate the hostility of the Fenians? No; it encouraged them; it afforded them a triumph, and a great triumph it was, though they did not seek it, that Her Majesty's Ministers, bound by the most solemn obligations to uphold the Pro-
  356
  testant Establishment, overthrew it, declaring it to be an offence to the people of Ireland. Thus, you alienated the feelings of the loyal Protestants of Ireland, without winning the attachment of the Fenians. I heard some noble Lord say that the Fenian movement was dying out. My Lords, it may be so; but you cannot take the credit of it. If it is dying out it is owing to the gallantry with which the Canadians lately repelled the Fenian invasion of their country, and to the loyal and honourable conduct of the President of the United States in dealing with it. Do you think you will be more successful this year in your attempt by this Land Bill to conciliate the Ribbon conspirators? My Lords, it it not thus that such associations are to be put down. You are, on the contrary, holding out a direct encouragement to agrarian outrages; and I warn your Lordships that if you pass this Bill as it is here sent up to you, it will, and justly, be hereafter pointed at, as a justification, on the part of Parliament and of Her Majesty's Government, of the assassinations of all those landlords and agents who have fallen victims to the Ribbon conspiracy.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, that, as one connected both with Ulster and the South of Ireland, he wished to say a few words. He was one of those who thought that the prosperity of the Northern Province had been produced by the tenant-right custom, and by the sense of security which the tenantry of that part of Ireland felt in the honour and good will of their landlords. His experience of Ulster was, that though the farms were small, the tenants were contented. The Secretary of State for India (the Duke of Argyll) last night had explained the Bill with a perspicuity which to his mind left nothing to be desired; and he felt sure that the noble words he had uttered would bring conviction to the minds of Irishmen that Her Majesty's Government had a sincere desire for the welfare of Ireland. He had no doubt that in most parts of Ireland the tenantry felt themselves safe under their present landlords; but he thought they must go beyond that, and to make their safety and certainty in their holdings a matter independent of their landlords. As a noble Lord who lived in Ulster (Lord Lurgan), said that evening, he would not vote for any measure that tended to

  357
  rob him of his property; but he should certainly support this measure, because he believed that, while it could do no harm to the just man, it would tend to restrain the unjust man from oppressing those who lived in dependence upon him.
  THE EARL OF PORTARLINGTONsaid, he had lived in Ireland for 25 years, and had never heard of any grievance to excuse legislation in this direction, until the occurrence of those cruel evictions, which were unknown among the old landlords of the country, and which had been introduced by the new class of landlords who had purchased their property through the Encumbered Estates Court—a Court which had broken up the old family estates of the country, and introduced landlords of an entirely different character in the place of the former owners. Still, however, the Irish land question was in such a state that it must be dealt with by whatever Government was in Office—nay, more than that, any Government dealing with the question ought to look at the matter from the same point of view as that taken by Her Majesty's Government. Sir John Gray, who had taken an active part in the mischievous agitation in the winter, upon the occasion of the third reading of the Bill in the other House of Parliament, had paid the Government a great compliment in saying that the Bill would prove ineffective in every respect but one, and that was, that it would have the effect of putting an end to these cruel evictions. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when that statement was made, might, he thought, have thrown up his cap and exclaimed that the object he had in view had been attained. Her Majesty's Government had dealt with the question without reference to party considerations, and had resisted a great deal of pressure that had been brought to bear upon them; but that pressure he could not help saying arose to a considerable extent from the extraordinary reticence which they had observed during the past autumn and winter. Agitation commenced last autumn for security of tenure and developed into fixity of tenure and rank Communism; but, if six lines of the fervent speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill in the other House had been uttered earlier, if they had not put a stop to the agitation altogether, they would have turned that agitation into a reasonable channel.
  358
  With respect to the scale of compensation, which was the real pith of the Bill, there could be no doubt that it had been a custom for generations past for the out-going tenant to receive either from his landlord or from the in-coming tenant compensation on quitting his holding. As to the Ulster tenant-right, he had always understood that it was an ancient right, which had existed from the time of the Plantation of Ulster by James I.: but, in the course of the debate, a different origin had been ascribed to it. There were, of course, certain details in the Bill to which he objected, but those portions which were mischievous, would, he hoped, be amended in Committee. He did not, of course, believe that one solitary measure would calm Ireland, or restore that peace and prosperity to that country which every one had at heart; but he did believe that the kind and generous disposition which the United Parliament had evinced would in time be attended with beneficial results. A noble Lord the other evening had recommended the Government to leave Ireland alone. He (the Earl of Portarlington), on the contrary, trusted that the Government would not leave Ireland alone, but that they would proceed to legislate in other directions, by lowering the rivers now running to waste over the land, by consolidating her railways, by improving her harbours, and thus making the people contented and the country prosperous. If the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland were got rid of, and the Sovereign brought into immediate contact with the people, great good, he believed, would also be effected. He almost owed a grudge to his noble Friends the late and present Lords Lieutenant of Ireland for the truly liberal and patriotic manner in which they had discharged the duties of that high office, thereby keeping out of sight what he believed to be the defects of the system. Nobody could forget the exhibitions of loyalty and devotion on the rare occasions when Royalty visited Ireland; and if the office of Lord Lieutenant, which stood between the Crown and the people, were once abolished, the sweet graciousness of our Sovereign, once brought into contact with the affections of the Irish people, would light a flame that would not easily be extinguished.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should not say anything to

  359
  protract an already lengthened debate if it were not that I am one of those whom the Bill will affect very seriously for good or evil. The Bill will affect me not merely in those material interests connected with land, but in those non-material interests and relations upon which the tolerability of a landlord's life depends. I do not wish to say much about the expediency of the course pursued by the Government in legalizing the custom of Ulster tenant-right. I am cordially with them in believing that in doing this they obey the exigencies of an inevitable necessity. I do not believe that the Ulster tenant-right is ideal perfection. I am no friend to it on theoretical grounds; and if we were now inventing a constitution for Ireland I should be the first to object to this custom as a basis. Unfortunately, such is not the case. We cannot create the custom where it does not exist, or destroy it where it does; we can do nothing but legalize it, with all its faults and all its merits. I say with its merits, because, whatever its faults may be, at least we know that the custom is not incompatible with security and with prosperity on the part of the tenants—objects the accomplishment of which are aimed at by the Bill. I turn readily to that part of the Bill of which I can speak with less qualified praise. I mean the 3rd clause—that which gives compensation to tenants for disturbance merely, regardless of considerations as to improvements and such like matters; for I believe this clause to be the one which makes the Bill a real and genuine settlement of the tenants' claims. I am aware that this clause has been much stigmatized; but I cannot agree with the adverse judgment that has been passed upon it. In considering this part of the Bill, we must keep in mind very attentively what is its chief object. This is a Bill, not so much for the tenants of Ireland generally as for the protection of the smaller tenants. Every clause in the Bill proves this, and carries this impress upon it; and the noble Earl himself who commenced the debate a couple of nights since admitted as much. To give compensation to the larger tenants according to the custom is fair and laudable, and is a proper way of dealing with them; but without this clause, would the Bill be one for the protection and relief of small tenants? Would these tenants be compensated as they
  360
  should be by mere payment for improvements? They would not; the marketable additions to the holdings of small tenants do not at all represent the expenditure of labour which they have bestowed. Let me read one extract in proof of this from the Reports which have been so often referred to in this debate. At page 82 the Poor Law Inspectors, in their Report, say—
  "The improvements made by tenants and their predecessors here are of a nature to which it would be hard to affix a value. They arise more from the constant industry of man, continued from generation to generation, than from the actual or sudden outlay of capital."
  I would turn also to my own experience, brief though it may be, as landlord of an estate on which there are a great number of the poorer class of tenants. I have taken some little trouble to find out whether, if the tenants were paid for the improvements which have been made by them over any reasonable number of years, they would be compensated practically for their loss sustained by disturbance in their possession, and I can assure your Lordships that I believe, conscientiously and honestly, they would not be at all compensated by mere payment for improvements. Upon the estate to which I allude there are Over 900 tenants, of whom 580 are under £10 and 215 under £5 a year. These people have, on a barren and mountainous country, expended much labour; and, though you cannot talk in their case of "permanent buildings," for there is not much permanence about them, nor yet of "compensation for unexhausted improvements," nor of "tillages and manures," for terms like these are out of place in such parts of the country, and the very phraseology of high farming is unknown in the state in which these people find themselves called upon to labour, I do believe that if you were to restrict your compensation to payment for buildings, drainage, and other improvements you would not do them an approach to justice. Should tenants of this class be disturbed in their holdings—happily, there is no intention whatever of disturbing them—a measure in which a provision of this nature was omitted could not do otherwise than fail in achieving its purpose. Without this clause the Bill would be vexation to the landlord and vanity to the tenant. By some noble Lords this has been called "the black

  361
  part "of the Bill; but there is another which has been called blacker still—Clause 5, which creates the presumption of permanent improvements in favour of the tenants. I wholly disagree with the objections to that clause, and I must say that of the many arguments which struck me as singular, none was more so than the argument of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns), who said—
  "Let us remember that there is no use arguing how tar tenants have made improvements and how far they have not, for we have in our possession some facts concerning them."
  I should have thought, if the noble and learned Lord had not told us to the contrary, that the two points to be ascertained were—first, who, in fact, had made the improvements; and secondly, who ought, in the absence of evidence either way, to have the benefit of the doubt. As to the first point, we have this Report, which has been quoted again and again, and I see no reason to doubt the irresistible evidence afforded in its pages, that the bulk of the improvements have been made by the tenants. Generally speaking, the Report tends to show that the improvements made by the landlords are restricted to large estates and large farms, and usually take the form of slates and timber, while the rest are unanimously reported to be the tenants' own. As for the second point—to whom the benefit of the doubt should be given—I am surprised at the argument that the benefit should be given to the landlord, who possesses all the facilities for registration. The first day of this debate I took the opportunity of asking a gentleman who, for many years has been connected with, the management of estates belonging to me, within what time it would be possible for him to give me a schedule of the improvements executed upon the estate; and he replied that, if asked for it, I could have it almost by return of post. I maintain that upon all carefully managed estates such a return ought to be procurable; and if it be not forthcoming I can only say that it exhibits a lamentable imperfection in the wav in which the estate has been conducted. As for freedom of contract, or the extent to which this is proposed to be interfered with, the debate has been wisely removed from a discussion of the abstract principle to one whether this particular contract is fit to be enforced by the State. And it strikes me very
  362
  strongly that, if the enactments of the Bill are fit to be enforced, a contract violating the spirit of those enactments is not one that the State ought to support. Now, as to the probable results of the Bill—we have heard so many political prophecies that I shrink from making one of my own. By some noble Lords opposite we have heard it said that this Bill will cause the consolidation of farms, to the destruction of the smaller tenant. Other noble Lords, occupying seats on the same Benches, have contended that it will root upon the soil a class of small, scratching, useless tenants, whom it would be for the advantage of the country to get rid of as speedily as possible. I will not hesitate between these two predictions, for both are false. If I may hazard a prediction, this Bill will not effect a revolution of the outward face of society. Its effect will be gradual and imperceptible. It will not affect the bulk of the landlords, whose relations with their tenantry, I am happy to think, are excellent; but those bad landlords of whom we heard so much, will be heard of no more. Men of bad dispositions will be kept from doing mischief, and we shall no longer have the scandal of the minority of the class reflecting discredit upon the majority. Upon the moral relations, on the other hand, which subsist between one class and another, this Bill will operate greatly for good. Self-reliance is the quality of all others which we wish to inculcate, and there are, I doubt not, many proprietors of Irish estates who will agree with me that the want of self-reliance is among the great faults and imperfections of the character of the Irish tenants. We shall promote this self-reliance by relieving the tenant from the necessity of depending for favours instead of obtaining rights from his landlord. With his rights we shall give him a sense of dignity and duty, which will raise him in his sphere of life, and render him and the class to which he belongs more useful to themselves and to their country. And if we wake from the dream with which we have been taunted, of pacifying Ireland by conciliatory measures, it will be, I trust, to find that our dream is a reality, and that our just and generous offer has been justly and generously accepted. For these and other reasons I hope the Bill will produce good results.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, the noble Marquess who has just

  363
  spoken (the Marquess of Lansdowne) is perfectly right, as a Member of the Government, in expressing his confident feeling as to the result of this measure; and I rejoice that Irish landlords holding a great position should put the matter in a sanguine point of view, and appear determined to work out the Bill in a manner to be beneficial to the country. Rising at this period of the debate, I fear that I labour under a double disadvantage. Almost every considerable argument has been already dealt with so fully and effectually that it is very hard for me to travel over the same ground without wearying your Lordships. The subject was dealt with most effectively and exhaustively in that most admirable speech delivered last night by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns), to whose arguments no answer whatever has been made. I am also embarrassed by the fact of the admissions that have been made by Members of the Government on this subject. One Member of the Government addressed himself at considerable length to show that Ulster tenant-right is altogether a vicious system; yet this is the custom we are now called upon to legalize. Another Member of the Government, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, paid a very just tribute to the landlords of Ireland. He said there was no class in all Europe that could excel them in a strict sense of duty or humane feeling; yet it is the landlords of Ireland that you are branding by this Bill, and, towards whom, legislating with suspicion and distrust. Another Member of the Government condemned, "with faint praise," the clauses of Mr. Bright. Yet it is now proposed that we shall enact those clauses. The Lord Privy Seal did not attempt to disguise his opinion that the result of this measure would be the consolidation of small farms; yet its ostensible object is to encourage small farms. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) said he thought the result would be to raise rents; but, as one of the professed objects of the Bill is to improve the condition of the tenantry of Ireland, I scarcely think that result would be very popular with the tenants. The grounds on which I myself should be disposed to vote for the measure may be expressed in very few words. I think it may be supported partly out of consideration for the landlords of Ireland, partly in, the interests of the Empire, and partly
  364
  for the sake of Ireland itself—for the landlords, who in many cases can obtain no rents or exercise any of the legitimate powers to which as landlords they are entitled, but at the risk of their lives; for the great mass of the peaceable trading, prosperous population of Ireland, to whom the present state of things is an abomination; in the interest of the Empire, distracted by the chronic state of disaffection of a great portion of Ireland; and, lastly, for the sake of Ireland itself, which, being exceptionally situated, may gain, possibly, by some exceptional legislation at our hands. Under the circumstances, it is worth making an experiment, and I indulge myself with the hope—though we may be moving in the wrong direction—that we may do for Ireland by legislation that which has already been done by cordial and kindly feeling in England, between landlord and tenant. But on almost every other ground it seems to me that the Bill is essentially retrograde. The tendency of tenant-right in Ulster has been, perhaps, to suppress agrarian crime, therefore by all means do not abolish tenant-right; but, on the other hand, it is equally clear that that right is founded on incorrect and economically vicious principles, and, therefore, say do not legalize them, but allow them to take their natural course and die out, after serving their purpose for a time. But what does this Bill do? It stereotypes that right, and gives it a new force and vitality without at the same time defining it. With regard to its interference with freedom of contract, I do not deny that contracts have frequently been interfered with; but if there be any excuse for the violation of freedom of contract, it is the utter helplessness of one of the contracting parties. But if this necessity is a justification for interference with contracts, I ask the Government to show us where the necessity is in this case. The onus probandi lies on those who propose such a course; and so far as facts and figures are a guide, I rather think that the conclusion lies in the opposite direction. I have a Return of the number of evictions which have taken place in Ireland during the last four years. Assuming the area of Ireland to be 20,000,000 of acres and the holdings 600,000, the evictions for non-payment of rent have been only 596, whilst for all other causes the

  365
  evictions amounted to the insignificant number of 280. If, therefore, your Lordships will divide that by four, you will find that the average of these four years has been only 70 evictions for other causes. Whatever other arguments there may be for this measure, these figures will show, at all events, that there has been a vast amount of exaggeration with regard to this subject. As regards the Irish landlords, I should be content to rest the case upon what was said by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who paid a just tribute to them; but your Lordships have also before you the Reports of the Poor Law Inspectors, prepared in reply to a letter issued by the present Chief Secretary of Ireland. The substance of these Reports is, that the number of evictions are very few; that improvements have been made as much by the landlords as by the tenants; that scarcely any improvements made by tenants have been disallowed by landlords; and that numberless acts of kindness and good-will have passed between landlord and tenant. It is perfectly true, however, that they draw distinctions between those landlords who have been long in possession of their property and those who have bought land for purposes of speculation. The noble Earl (Earl Russell) told us the other night one or two stories which implied that there had been great criminality on tee part of the landlord. I am far from denying that there have been unjust and bad landlords; but, after all, the criminality and injustice are not all on one side. I will ask your Lordships to allow me to mention a story for which I can vouch, which is, I fear, an illustration of no very uncommon practice, and which will stow that there is something to be said on the side of the landlord. Not very far from Limerick the father of the present owner of a large property, some 30 years ago, consented to pay for the goodwill of a farm and the emigration money and the full expenses to the then tenant. That tenant emigrated to America, and 30 years afterwards—last year—his son returned and reclaimed the farm. It is due to him to say that he undertook to repay the goodwill and emigration money. But it was of course impossible to accede to his request; and your Lordships will not be surprised to hear, that within a few days the man who had
  366
  become the tenant of the farm threw up his holding because he dared no longer keep it, in consequence of this claim. I said this Bill was retrograde in its principles. It is particularly so with regard to the question of freedom of contract; and I appeal to noble and learned Lords whether the whole progress of legal improvement for many years has not been in the direction of encouraging rather than interfering with freedom of contract? The old law was quite sufficient for the state of society formerly existing; but, in order to keep pace with the requirements of an inventive age, it has become almost an accumulation of contractual rules, and the province of imperative law has been diminished just in proportion as the sphere of free agreement has been enlarged. So far then as freedom of contract goes a needless violation of it is a retrograde policy. Again, it is obvious that this Bill, rightly or wrongly, does involve the transfer of certain proprietary rights. It has been said by an authority—whom noble Lords on the other side of the House are bound to respect—that the State is free to transfer those rights, but that it must do so under the conditions that compensation shall be paid to those whose rights are transferred, and some just cause or reason shown for the transfer. I would ask, then, is any compensation given under this Bill to the landlords of Ireland, or has any case been set up to show that they have so transgressed as to deserve to be deprived of those rights? If that be so, according to the argument of Mr. Mill—and I desire no better authority—this transfer is at any rate questionable. I do not deny that the State which has created those proprietory rights can destroy or modify them; but a wise Legislature will always touch upon them tenderly and sparingly; and although lawyers may draw subtle distinctions between real and personal property, no needless interference with property in any form can take place without all those who are interested in property of any kind being affected. This is not merely a question relating to the landlords of Ireland, but capitalists, fundholders, and even depositors in savings banks are equally concerned in the course which this Bill may take. A good deal was said the other night as to those clauses of the Bill by which the State is to advance money for the pur-

  367
  chase of land. I cannot help expressing a doubt as to the wisdom of the State becoming a proprietor or a purchaser. I doubt whether the experience which we have on the subject is altogether satisfactory. I hardly know how the State is prepared, when it has obtained these properties, to manage them, as in certain cases it must. Nor can I see how, when rents are in arrear, the State will be prepared to recover bad debts; how it can organize an army of agents for the purpose of managing these transactions; or on what principle you calculate that the tenant who has been unwilling to pay rent to his landlord will be disposed to pay rent to that much more hateful landlord the State—how those who have been faithless in a few things will be found faithful in many. I do not think you have borne in mind the fact that the State cannot afford, as proprietor and purchaser, to show the same laxity and leniency that a private individual and an ordinary proprietor can extend to the tenant. The history of the collection of tithe in Ireland in the years 1834 and 1836—if other experience was wanted—would be quite enough to justify some hesitation on such a question. With regard to the question of small holdings, it seems to have been forgotten that at this moment one of your difficulties is their multiplicity, and that one-half of the present holdings are under 15 acres, and one-third under five acres. But you have made no provision in this Bill for the labourer; and. if there is one class of men whom I pity more than another, it is the class of labourers to the small tenants. A great deal has been said in favour of the "perpetual settlement" system in India, but I imagine that the general consent of opinion on the part of those best acquainted with Indian facts is that the poorer classes below the tenants who do benefit by the system are in no respect the better for it—if, indeed, they are not worse off. Again, I cannot resist a doubt as to the effect of these small holdings as regards the landlord. Has the House considered that the pressure which may be exercised upon the landlord may be so severe as to oblige him to sell particular parts of his property which may, perhaps, be so situated as to damage, by their separation, the remainder of the estate; and that that pressure is rendered doubly severe in Ireland because it may be enforced by the shooting of a refractory landlord? But, pass-
  368
  ing from that, I now come to the clauses relating to procedure, respecting which I will only say one word. My objection to those clauses is, that they hold out inducements to litigation; and it must be remembered that facilities for litigation not only give no security to the tenant, but that their effect will be to alienate the landlord from him. The consequence will possibly be that if the landlord wins the suit there will be a consolidation of farms, and if the tenant wins the landlord will become an absentee. There was a time when the absenteeism of Irish landlords was looked upon with regret in that country; but since that time the cry has arisen of "Ireland for the Irish." I doubt, therefore, whether those who have raised it will regret the absence of the landlords. But, my Lords, one thing appears to me to be very clear—that if the influence and power of the Irish landlords be weakened, the influence and power hitherto exercised by them must of necessity be transferred to the Roman Catholic Church. There are two great powers in Ireland—the Roman Catholic Church and the landlords—and to a certain extent they have counterbalanced each other. It is not a fitting opportunity to enter into a controversy as to whether the change would be beneficial or otherwise; but this much I will say, that if the operation of this Bill be such as is desired by its supporters out-of-doors and the power of the landlords is materially curtailed, the balance of power will very probably be shifted to the Roman Catholic clergy. Your Lordships may not desire or intend that such should be the result of the Bill, but, if it fulfils the expectations I have alluded to, to that result it must come. The sole object of this Bill is said to be the pacification and satisfaction of Ireland. I trust it will turn out to do so. I heartily echo the wishes expressed by noble Lords on the other side of the House, for no man can feel more than I do the danger to this country of chronic disaffection in Ireland. But I cannot forget how strong and fierce the cry was last year for fixity of tenure. I know that you do not mean to grant that by this Bill. I know that you do not mean to embark in a policy of confiscation; I know that you do not even intend to make the Bill a stepping-stone towards confiscation—but if the Bill does not do these things is it likely to satisfy those who clamoured so loudly in favour of

  369
  such a policy last winter? It is a Bill extremely different from what those persons wished and demanded. My Lords, I intend to vote for this Bill, on the principle that it expresses a desire on the part of England to strain every point, even to a doubtful extent, in order to meet the wishes of the Irish people; but let me add that I also vote for it in the hope that, if it be passed, it will be an earnest of an intention on the part of the Irish people to obey the laws of the Empire. Three hundred years ago it was said by a great writer in reference to Ireland, that it was in vain to attempt to carry out laws which men did not care to observe. These words seem to be applicable to the present circumstances of that country. My Lords, if Ireland desires to have that prosperity which has so often been dashed from her almost in the moment of fruition, she can recover it only by learning that lesson which both individuals and nations must learn—obedience to law and to constituted authority.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, at this late period of the debate I shall condense as much as possible the few remarks I have to offer on the Bill which is now presented for your acceptance. I have certainly been somewhat embarrassed by the way in which noble Lords have spoken, and I am somewhat puzzled how to deal with arguments that were supposed to have been addressed in opposition to our measure, but which, at the same time, made large concessions to its principle, and were, in fact, in many points, arguments directly in favour of the Bill. The words of the noble Earl who has just sat down (the Earl of Carnarvon) were remarkable. He said that he was disposed to support the second reading of the Bill in the interest of the landlords, in the interest of the peaceable portion of the community, in the interests of the Empire, and in the interests of Ireland herself. But while admitting these advantages as exceptions, he said that on all other points but these he opposed the Bill. But, my Lords, the exceptions remind us of those made by Beaumarchais when he said that, excepting all comments on the Government, on the Sovereign, on the nobility, on authors, and on theatres, the Press was perfectly free. This question, my Lords, is of as great importance as any question which has ever been discussed by the Senate of
  370
  this country; yet, except as to these great interests, the noble Earl says the Bill is mischievous and retrograde. Such arguments, my Lords, make it very embarrassing to those who have to reply to them. However, passing from that I will express my great gratitude both to the noble Earl who opened the debate, and to the noble Duke who replied to his speech; because their addresses have given a tone to the debate which has been, on the whole, well followed throughout its course. The noble Earl plainly pointed out the several subjects for discussion, such as he thought were necessary in order to satisfy the House that the principle of the Bill was correct—that being the function of an address anterior to the second reading. My noble Friend did not enter into minute details, but pointed out the general principles of the measure. The noble Duke the Leader of the Opposition followed in a tone which gave the greatest satisfaction to all who heard him, and particularly to those on the Government side of the House. His speech was framed in a tone of dispassionate and calm consideration, was free from party bias, and was characterized by a noble and candid desire to express all he could in favour of the measure, of which he approved on the whole, though he differed considerably from a portion of its details. My Lords, the principles that are embodied in the Bill are so few that I can deal with them very briefly. In the first place, I dismiss altogether that second portion of the Bill which has been distinguished as the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. We come, then, to those clauses which are the really important portion of the Bill, and to those matters which require explanation—I do not and will not say justification, because I think we have reason to be gratified at the success which this measure has already commanded. Those points are—first, the Ulster tenant-right and the making that custom a legal and binding contract between the parties; secondly, the clause which gives to the tenant certain compensation over and beyond the actual value of his improvements; thirdly, those clauses defining what are improvements; fourthly, the making the payment for them retrospective; fifthly, the presumption as to those improvements; and, sixthly, the forbidding certain contracts. It has been objected to many portions

  371
  of the Bill that it seriously interferes with the rights of property. But what is the matter we are called upon to consider? I hold that at this moment we are engaged, as the great inquest of the nation, in ascertaining what are the grievances and the ills which continue to keep Ireland in that sad and mournful state of chronic disaffection which she has so constantly exhibited. We searched into these matters 45 years ago in order to find a remedy. The attempts which have been made from time to time have entirely failed, because, as I believe, no one was bold enough to go to the real root of the matter. My Lords, I am prepared to show that this Bill is entirely founded on the highest respect for the rights of property, on a desire to secure those rights and to establish a secure tenure to the occupier as the best means of producing wealth to the country and improving the position of the landlords, and that it does so by means perfectly legitimate and consistent with every recognized principle of law—in speaking of the law I do not mean the law of one country or of another, but those principles of immutable justice which every country is bound to observe. I must here clear away what I think a fallacy in the principle my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) endeavoured to establish to the disparagement of our measure, from the works of an author whose candour is admitted. Mr. Campbell tells us that, disguise it as you may, you cannot take from A and give to B but A must be robbed and deprived of something before B can be a gainer. This might be a correct principle to apply to landed property if a landowner were living by himself on his land and never let it, and each proprietor held his own land, controlling it by himself, and admitting of no other interest arising in connection with it. In that case the principle might be true that you could take nothing from A and give it to B without the gain of B being the measure of A's loss. But when you come to the complicated relations of landed property I wholly deny it. In various instances Parliament has dealt with these things. Take the case of ecclesiastical tenants, whose leases were in practice renewable for ever, you may say, because they were almost always renewed. But this double interest of the landlord and the lessee was found to be most detrimental in its effect on the
  372
  interests of both, and it was thought desirable to interfere and consolidate the two interests into one: and the value of each when brought together was found to be much greater than the value when separate. Again, in regard to copyholds, Parliament compelled the lords of manors to enfranchise them, because it was found that the copyhold system was detrimental to the interests both of the lords and of the copyholders, and prevented the improvement of estates; and it was thought necessary for the Legislature to interfere to do that which was best for the interests, not only of the country, but of the owners of property themselves. A noble Earl (the Earl of Leitrim) who spoke to-night with vigour and vehemence with reference to the robbery we were committing—using rather harsher terms than any others employed in this debate, remarking that Satan, even with Mr. Gladstone's assistance, could not have produced anything worse than this Bill—that noble Earl said that the Encumbered Estates Act was an Act of universal robbery, and a great interference with property. An interference with property in one sense it certainly was; but there is no interference with the proprietory right where for the interest of both the landlord and the tenant you do that which tends to the peace and prosperity of the kingdom, and to promote that security of tenure on which the improvement of estates depends, and which is as much for the interest of the one party as the other. The statement made by Mr. Gladstone in "another place," in reference to the effect of security of tenure, has never been contradicted or denied; and, happily, we have statistics which strongly illustrate the advantage of that security of tenure which this Bill is intended to promote. Mr. Gladstone showed, on the authority of Arthur Young, that in 90 years before 1869 the income from landed property in Ireland had doubled; that in England in the same period it had trebled; while in Scotland, where there has been the greatest possible security of tenure, and where the greatest interest is taken by the landlords in the position of their tenants, it had actually increased in value six-fold. Nor does it stop there. We also find that, while in all Ireland the income from landed property only doubled in those 90 years, in the North of Ireland, where the Ulster custom

  373
  prevails, it has trebled. Thus, where there is the greatest security of tenure, there, as you would naturally expect, you find the greatest improvement in agriculture. The noble Earl who spoke last (the Earl of Carnarvon), asked what return we give the landlords for what we take from them? I answer that we give them increased prosperity, and that we shall advance and increase the value of their property, as well as that of their tenants, because they will find their tenants disposed to improve—as they are even now disposed to improve, notwithstanding the insecurity which damps their energy—who will continue to improve, attaining under more favourable circumstances greater results. That is what we give the landlords in exchange for what we take from them. The noble Earl says—"You propose to increase rents—do you suppose the tenants desire increased rents?" I answer—"Yes; if they flow naturally from increased security, and if in proportion as rents increase so also do the payments awarded to the tenant in respect of capricious eviction increase." Having thus disposed of what I think a rather factitious view of the rights of property, let me now tell my noble and learned Friend what I think to be the principles of property embodied in this Bill. I think I am bound to do so because he challenged us how we could reconcile the Bill with the rights of property which we had promised to respect. From the beginning to the end we have sought to maintain this principle—it was the thing above all others we sat down to consider, how we should guard against interfering with those rights. Last night the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) did us that justice when he said—
  "When I looked at the Bill and found you did I not deal with proprietory rights I felt greatly gratified. I found you did not give way to the clamour which existed 'elsewhere," and I feel I bound to say you took a bold and courageous course in so doing."
  And we did respect the rights of property, and interfered in no way with proprietory rights. We gave a charge to the tenant with respect to his property. We made him, not a co-proprietor, not a man having a voice as to who shall be the tenant, but we gave, him simply a charge upon the property to the extent of his interest. Therefore, I say, landlord's rights have been fully; consulted. Then I come to the tenant's
  374
  rights. Well, has he not rights? Here has been the great mistake. There are two cardinal principles which my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) will not controvert—settled principles of the law—settled principles in the jurisprudence of every country in the world. They are these—that a man who makes a representation to another, on which that other person acts, is bound to make that representation good. That principle will carry you through every case in which the landlord has permitted a tenancy from year to year to be sold in order that he may obtain his rent from the purchase-money. In this case it would be very unjust to turn out the purchaser without compensation. My noble and learned Friend and I cannot differ on that; and I am sure the moral logic of his mind will always prevail over any other logic that may be imported into his speech. The second principle is, that wherever there is a custom largely prevailing over a district in regard to any subject-matter it is necessarily imported into any contract having I reference to that subject-matter. The grand mistake has been this—we have been applying in Ireland the common law of England to a subject-matter and state of circumstances totally different from those that prevail in England. The mistake which we made in Ireland we made also in India. An intelligent Indian Judge wrote to me, asking what he ought to do in a case in which he was told he should act on the principles of common law. He knew, he said, that our common law was built up of all our customs and habits for centuries, and that our customs and Hindoo customs were quite different. How was he to apply it? A very sensible remark. But we have been applying the common law of England to a totally different state of things; and, whereas, in England you never allow anything to the tenant for his improvements, because everything necessary for the cultivation of his farm—dwelling-house, homesteads, barns, and all other needful things—being found for him, it is his own folly if he expends his own money on any other improvements, and he has no right to claim to be repaid; yet you apply the same rule to Ireland, where the tenant does all; he builds his house or his cottage, drains the land, makes his fences, gates, &c, and, therefore, the common law in Ireland ought long ago to have given him

  375
  an interest in all these matters. Lord Mansfield was cited by my noble and learned Friend as having spoken the other way, and it is quite true that he did so. But I say—though it is a bold thing to say it—that a mistake was made on the part of Lord Mansfield on this subject. Lord Mansfield's memory needs no justification. What my noble Friend (Earl Granville) said was, not that the Irish Judges had leaned with an undue bias towards the interest of the landlords, and introduced what I think is a confusion of principle into the law, but he merely stated—and stated correctly—what the Irish Judges had decided. In a famous case an Irish Judge said that although it was contrary to all equity, he was obliged to decide according to what had been declared to be English law in the matter, and he could not question it. When the judgment was made known in Ireland it produced great terror throughout that country; and the Irish Parliament—a Parliament of landlords—passed an Act in effect reversing it, settling these things on the righteous principle of custom, and providing that the leases which had fallen in should be allowed to be renewed. I must say I never heard in the course of this debate one expression of complaint of the Irish landlords either from my Colleagues or from any noble Lord sitting on this side of the House. They did not say that the Irish landlords as a class were bad; far from it. But there are unhappily exceptions, and sad exceptions; and just as one unpunished assassination spreads fear and alarm over a whole district, so one of these unjust notices to quit strikes terror into the whole body of tenantry—and so things go on, the one reacting on the other until the blunderbuss is brought out to answer the notice to quit. My noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns), at the close of his address, taunted my Colleagues and myself, and said what great sacrifices we had to make before we could bring our minds to adopt this measure. Well, however that may be, I have an acknowledgment to make— and I make it with shame—that I should have sat for so many years in the House of Commons and heard Mr. Sharman Crawford bring forward his Bills, and urge the adoption of some such measure as this, and always withheld my support from him. I did my duty years ago with respect to the
  376
  Irish Church; for 20 years ago I voted for its disestablishment. Although, then, during the time I was in the other House of Parliament, I failed in my duty in regard to the Irish tenantry, I rejoice that now, at the latter end of my life, I have had an opportunity of doing this justice to the Irish people. And now I cannot help calling my noble and learned Friend's attention to a point my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India touched on last night—I mean the presumption with respect to improvements. My noble and learned Friend told us that both in 1853 and 1855 he gave notice of clauses giving compensation for retrospective improvements. Now, there are estates in Ireland where the value of retrospective improvements at the moment we pass this Bill may be no less than £7,000, £8,000, or £10,000. But there were estates existing when my noble and learned Friend introduced his clause on which the value of the retrospective improvements could not fall short of £10,000, and if my noble and learned Friend's clause had passed, which he said was better than any contained in our Bill, it would have transferred from A to B on these particular estates a sum of £10,000. As I said before, my noble and learned Friend's moral logic is very apt to be right. The logic of his heart I always trust; but the logic of his head I watch. I never doubt him as to a single fact, but I watch his deductions and his arguments. I now come to another head—the compensation given by the Bill, irrespective of tenant's improvements. Mr. Trench tells us that it is the greatest mistake in the world to suppose that the Ulster tenant-right arose from the value of improvements made by the tenants. He says that in general the tenants who avail themselves of the Ulster tenant-right are poor men who wish to emigrate, and that the agent of the landlord sets up "a little Insolvent Court," where he receives the value of the tenant-right, pays the landlord his rent, and, if the man is not in debt, distributes the remainder of the money among his family. Mr. Trench tells us that the man often gets £6 an acre, though he may not have executed a single improvement. But then as to the presumption of improvements. Observe, first, that there is not a single thing proposed in these clauses of the Bill which is not done freely by every

  377
  good landlord. But then you say—"That is charity." Now, to legislate in a charitable sense is not good, and I never approve anything done in that way; but when we find that every landlord who is disposed to do good does it all in one direction, not giving to a church or an hospital, or other benevolent institution, then, I think, we may conclude there is something more than charity in all that—there is in it the recognition of a high moral right. A noble Lord who spoke tonight in opposition to the Bill, said he agreed that there should be compensation for retrospective improvements, because though legally they were the property of the landlord, they were morally the property of the tenant. I say that is the conviction of the landlords of Ireland, and we only take the Ulster custom as our guide in establishing the principle. A noble Earl (Earl Russell) who spoke early in the debate said that we lawyers are fond of presumptions. Well, we do like that presumption which experience shows is the thing that truth requires to be presumed; and where there are two parties to a contest, one making this and the other the contrary claim, the question is on whom ought the onus probandi to be thrown? We cannot decide this except on presumption. In England the landlord is the owner of his land, and of all that stands upon it; and, therefore, if a house has been built upon the land, the English law very properly presumes that it was built by the landlord. But in Ireland the case is exactly the contrary. We learn by the Devon Commission that in Ireland the improvements are, as a rule, made by the tenant, and that improvements made by the landlords are the exception: therefore, in the Bill, we presume the rule, and not the exception. If it can be proved that things have changed since the Devon Commission reported, then the case is different; but until that is shown the presumption is in favour of the tenant. And as to the question of facility of proof, who can doubt that the landlord is bettor able to prove his case than the tenant? The landlord in Ireland, when he has no agent, acts directly himself, and keeps his own accounts. In the case of an agent being employed, all the transactions connected with the estate are, of course, recorded in his books. What
  378
  does the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) say on this point? Why, he says that his agent could send him by return of post an account of all the improvements he has made. One word only, as to the freedom of contract. Suppose a man says to his tenant—? "The Bill gives you a great deal of prospective property; but you must sign this paper and thereby waive your claim to the benefit of its provisions." Well, if the Bill is to be got rid of by three lines of writing, it is obvious we have not done much for the protection of the tenant. Now, my Lords, do they not require protection? I am ready to grapple with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) on his own theory, though that theory is contrary to law and fact, and take it that, when the law interferes between a man and his neighbour, it is only in a question of life; and I say it is a question of life when the tenants on a smaller scale are ejected. We have just heard from the noble Earl who spoke last that one-half of the holders of land in Ireland occupy land under £15. [The Earl of CARNARVON: 15 acres.] Under 15 acres—though it is pretty much the same thing—and one-third under five acres. Well, my Lords, can it be said that these tenants do not require protection? Let me remind your Lordships of a circumstance, which occurred a long time ago, and so my mentioning it can do no one any injury. I I recollect—and I dare say many of your Lordships recollect—reading in the newspapers of the manner in which a rather eccentric landlord, well known, disposed of his superfluous tenantry. It was a very ingenious device to escape the charge of cruelty—and at first sight the plan, though ingenious, does not appear to be attended with any great hardship; but it was the practice of this gentleman to give to the tenants he desired to get rid of £2 or £3 a piece to pull down their own cottages. When I first read this account, I felt inclined to smile; but, my Lords, the humour is a very grim stroke of humour. He who depicted its results could only be such a man as he who was qualified to depict the Dance of Death. He would represent the peasant in his infatuation destroying his home, whilst the ghastly shadow pointed to the pauper churchyard or the American swamp in the back distance. Therefore, grappling with the noble Marquess

  379
  on his own ground—which, after all, is not the true one—I say we are fully justified in saying that there shall not be full liberty of contract. I feel it would be unadvisable to waste your Lordships' time by going further into the details of this measure; but I implore your Lordships to consider one thing before you go into Committee. We are now engaged in an attempt to do what is right and just. I will not attempt to prophesy—I have no turn that way—all that we can do is to see as far as we can what we propose as the result of our measure. We have heard it acknowledged on both sides of the House that our intentions are good; we have had many concessions already made to us; from every quarter we are told that there are many parts of this Bill which are right and just; and the best proof that that is so is the fact that the noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House do not intend to resist the principle of the Bill. I am thankful for it; and I am not, I hope, taking an undue advantage in using that as an argument. I am thankful that that is so, because I believe it shows that they are willing to join with us in forming one unanimous body intent on saving Ireland, if possible, from the miseries which have hitherto afflicted her—because it shows that we are awaking to a sense of our duty, and that we have all one common object in view, differing only on points of detail. But if a Bill, which, after all, the landlords themselves tell us can in no way injuriously affect the interests of a good landlord, is to be changed—I do not use the words offensively—in a landlord sense, you will defeat the whole object of the Bill. You acknowledge that we have given only what was required, and that when we were asked to give what was unreasonable we held our hands. We have given what we believe to be right and just, and if you intend to make any serious alteration in Committee you undo the whole work, and you might as well throw the Bill out at once. If it fails to pacify Ireland you have done more harm than good. We are not driving you to charity by Act of Parliament. It is not in the omnipotence of Parliament itself to change the heart of the good landlords of Ireland; but there are some few who by their acts, however seldom committed, create a sense of insecurity which is detrimental to the
  380
  whole landlord class, and inspire the tenant class with feelings of hatred towards all landlords on account of the misdeeds of a single individual. What we do is simply to oblige unjust and unruly landlords to obey that higher moral law which is sufficient guide for good landlords; and if that be accomplished the Bill will not be without its due effect. No harm will be done to good landlords, and we shall show how earnest the people of England are to place the people of Ireland on the same footing of peace and tranquillity as that which they themselves occupy, and I tremble at the possible consequences if a direction were given to this Bill which would justify its being charged with being a landlords' instead of a tenants' measure.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he had listened with great attention to the debate, anxious to find a reason for giving a vote in favour of the second reading of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord who had just sat down had told them that, in his opinion, the Bill did not interfere with the rights of property in Ireland, and such was the general tenor of the speeches of the noble Lords on the opposite Benches. But the noble Duke the Secretary of State for India, who addressed them last night, expressed a very different opinion. He said he was astonished that anybody on the opposite side of the House who had considered that part of the Bill which proposed to give compensation for former improvements, did not see that it was a violation of the rights of property—I do not believe I have misstated the argument.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: The noble Duke has misunderstood me. I quoted the argument of the noble and learned Lord opposite against the 3rd clause, and said it was equally applicable to Clauses 1 and 2.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: I thought the observation of the noble Duke went further, for at the time when the speech was delivered I thought the language employed by the noble Duke so extraordinary that I believed I was the victim of my own deafness; but on referring to The Times of that morning I found that my impression of the noble Duke's statement was correct. Having said thus much, I am desirous of saying that I shall offer no opposition to the second reading of the Bill. I hope that it may

  381
  be beneficial in manner and in spirit to the people of Ireland. As I have risen merely to point out an expression of my noble Friend, which I think so unfortunate, I may say that, in my opinion, the real cause of the misery of Ireland is not the oppression of the landlords, is not the difference of religion between Roman Catholics and Protestants, but s the legislation of this country—in one word, it is free trade in corn that has brought this misery upon the country. Ireland is au agricultural country, and you have deprived her of her market and the chief part of her trade; and I believe it is to that account alone that Ireland owes her present position.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  PROTEST.
  Against the Second Reading.
  DISSENTIENT:
  "Because some of the provisions of this Bill are opposed to the just rights of property, and are admitted by its advocates to be unfit to be made the law in England and Scotland, and to be only justified in Ireland on account of the existing relations between landlord and tenant in some parts of that country, which they consider exceptional, and hope may be removed under the operation of this measure.
  "Because it is proposed that these provisions, instead of being imposed for a limited period to meet an exceptional state of things, are to be enacted permanently, and thereby appear to be established as principles which ought to exist by law at all times between landlord and tenant, and any attempt to repeal them, although the exceptional reason for their introduction may have passed away, will be attended with serious opposition and discontent.
  "Because this enactment of them as principles is likely to lead to agitation for the extension of similar provisions to England and Scotland, in order that one system of permanent law on the subject may be established throughout the United Kingdom.
  "REDESDALE; LUCAN; MALMESBURY; KILMAINE; GRINSTEAD; SALTOUN; ORANMORE and BROWNE; SOMERHILL; SALTERSFORD; CLEMENTS; DUNSANY, for first and second Reasons; MOORE; TEMPLETOWN; MANCHESTER; DUNSANDLE and CLANCONAL, for first and second Reasons; DIGBY."
  House adjourned at a quarter past Twelve o'clock A.M., to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.