§ Amendments reported (according to order).
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUEYsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Dunsany), who was not. then present, had an Amendment on the Paper to the effect that—
The tenant shall not on his holding, without the consent of his landlord, break up any ancient pasture or meadow laud.He wished to know if the Government had any objection to accept that Amendment, because, if not, he would move it?
§ LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, the Amendment was quite unnecessary, as the case of waste committed by a tenant was fully dealt with by the existing law.
§ THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, he thought the subject a very important one, and he could not see what possible objection the Government had to accepting the Amendment.
§ LORD O'HAGANsaid, the existing law was sufficient to meet the case. There could not be the slightest doubt that an injunction would be adequate protection against waste being committed by a tenant.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that as this was not a question which would be decided by the Commissioners he would not press the Amendment.
§ LORD HARLECHcould not see why the Government should object to the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the objection of the Government was to putting in the Bill particular exceptions when general words answered equally well.
§ THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, that he had drawn up an Amendment to the clause, for the purpose of enabling the landlord to exercise his rights with regard to wreck and seaweed, &c, on the seashore. The Government had an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the same subject; but he thought the Government proposal did not go far enough. His Amendment was to insert the words "exercising rights to wrecks and royalties," as one of the incidents of tenancy reserved to the landlord.
§ LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that he was going to add words to his Amendment which he hoped would satisfy the noble Earl.
§ THE EARL OF COURTOWNasked what these words were. He did not like to compromise his position by giving up what he had got for what he did not know.
§ LORD CARLINGFORDread his Amendment, which reserved to the landlord the right of—
Passing and re-passing to and from the seashore with or without horses and carriages for exercising any royal franchise belonging to the landlord.The point, he said, had been carefully considered by the Government, and he thought his words were better than those of the noble Earl. He also intended to improve them by adding the words "right of property or."
LORD STANLEY or ALDERLEYsaid, he thought the words of the Lord Privy Seal would best answer the purpose in view. This Amendment was very necessary, as much drift timber had already been lost through the ill-will of the tenants.
§ THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, that he would not press his Amendment.
§ Amendment (Lord Carlingford) agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Incidents of tenancy subject to statutory conditions).
THE EARL OF LIMERICKmoved, in page 7, line 21, to leave out the words "was lawfully entitled to cut," and substitute the words "may be entitled to cut."
§ LORD CARLINGFORDconsidered the Amendment unnecessary; but, at the same time, saw no great objection to it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 8 (Determination by court of rent of present tenancies).
THE EARL OF PEMBROKEmoved, in page 11, line 17, to leave out (" made payable,") in order to insert the word ("increased.") He said he had moved this Amendment in Committee, perhaps upon very short notice, and he had been asked to bring it up on the Report. The object of the Amendment was to prevent the tenant from being misled by the words in the Bill as to his position and rights under it. All who had property knew the great likelihood of a man misleading himself as to the value of the improvements he had made by way of set-off against rent or arrears.
§ LORD CARLINGFORDopposed the Amendment. He said it was conceivable, in some future condition of things, that though the rent might not have been increased it might be inequitable. That might be the case if, quite independent of landlord or tenant, there were a change in the value of property.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKEsaid, he was at a loss to conceive how the Amendment would oblige the Commissioners to maintain an inequitable rent.
§ Amendment negatived.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLasked the Lord Privy Seal whether under the clause it was possible to make an agreement such as that which he quoted the other night, by which the proprietor of landed property in the "West of Ireland might make an improvement lease in which the rent was increased a few shillings every year, so that the rent per acre would eventually increase from Is. an acre to 14s. an acre? He did not know whether it was the intention of the Government to prevent such leases; but he was quite sure that that was the effect of the Bill.
§ LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he was not able to answer the noble Duke's question off-hand. He could not, however, himself see that the question applied to the clause at all.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was afraid that the clause would prevent any increase of rent being made upon a tenant in respect of any improvement made 1173 during the 15 years' term. In the case he quoted the other day, a few shillings increase was made by agreement in five or six years. Such cases as this were universally recognized in Ireland, and were extremely beneficial to both parties. Under this Bill it would be impossible to make such agreements.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE, agreeing with the noble Duke, said that the landlord might desire to let at a low rent during the first few years in consideration of the tenant making certain improvements, and then to raise the rent to a sum more nearly approximating to the value of the land—would such an arrangement be legal under the Bill or not?
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, surely noble Lords did not imagine that the Bill was for the improvement of Ireland, because if they did they were very much mistaken. Its result would certainly be to check improvement in the country.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsuggested to the Government that it would be wise, before the Bill returned to the House from the Commons, to insert some power to the Court to sanction such arrangement as he had mentioned.
§ EARL CAIRNSsaid, that such an arrangement could be made in a lease sanctioned by the Court for 31 years.
§ LORD CARLINGFORDagreed that there was no question at all that it could be done.
THE EAEL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, it was no use suggesting that anything should be put into the Bill in "another place," because they could only deal with the Amendments made by this House; and if this clause was to be altered it must be done now.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORN, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—Clause 8, at end of sub-section 8, page 11, insert—
("But nothing herein contained shall prejudice any right heretofore enjoyed by the tenant of any holding subject to the Ulster tenant right custom, or any usage heretofore corresponding with the Ulster tenant right custom,said, he intended to withdraw it. The noble Duke pointed out that a great deal of the prosperity of Ulster was due to the good feeling between landlords and tenants, which had been one of the results of the Ulster tenant right custom. He was sure the noble Marquess (the 1174 Marquess of Salisbury), in his Amendment the other night, did not intend to interfere with this custom; and if his Amendment could be shown to have an such tendency, he was convinced the noble Marquess would be ready to make whatever qualifications were necessary.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe noble Duke has rightly interpreted my views with respect to this Amendment. I do not intend to interfere with any rights enjoyed under the Ulster Custom, and I before stated decidedly that my Amendment would have no such effect. It simply amounts to this—that it is a notice for the future to all persons purchasing a holding that the amount which they may give for the purchase of that holding will not be held to be a just cause for reducing the rent at the time payable in respect thereto. That cannot affect any past transaction. At the same time, if it should be thought that any modifications are desirable in order to obtain that end, I shall be most willing to accept them.
§ LORD CARLINGFORDmoved, in page 15, after Clause 16, to insert the following clause:—
(Provision as to certain claims of pasturage and turbary.)("Where the tenant of a holding by virtue of his tenancy exercises over uninclosed land a right of pasturing or turning out cattle or other animals in common with other persons, or exercises a right of cutting and taking turf in common with other persons (which right is in this section referred to as a common right, and which other persons, together with the tenant, are in this section referred to as commoners), then if such holding becomes subject to a statutory term the Court may, during the continuance of such term, on the application of the landlord, or of any commoner, by order restrain the tenant from exercising his right of pasture or cutting or taking turf in any manner other than that in which it may be proved to the Court that he is, under the circumstances and according to the ordinary usage which has prevailed amongst the commoners, reasonably entitled to exercise the same.")He moved also to amend the proposed clause by inserting after the word ("commoner") the words (" with the consent of the landlord.")
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 21 (Provision as to existing leases).
THE EARL OF PEMBROKEmoved, in page 17, line 42, to leave out the words 1175 ("valued under the Act relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland at an annual value of,") and substitute the words ("held at a rent or rents,") the object being to substitute actual rent for rateable value. He remarked that one effect of the change he proposed would undoubtedly be to lower the figure at which tenants were to be allowed to contract themselves out of the Act. Most of their Lordships, he believed, would agree with him in thinking that such a change would be an advantage.
§ LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he was unable to agree to the Amendment. A line drawn by public authority was, for such a purpose as this, much better than one drawn by private individuals in the case of a particular farm. The Government were of opinion that £150 valuation was the lowest figure at which the parties ought to be permitted to contract themselves out of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUEYsaid, he thought they were not demanding a great deal if they asked that the greatest facilities should be given to the parties to arrange between themselves, in respect to future tenancies, the terms on which farms should be held. The Government were actually jealous of free contract—they loved servitude, and they objected to give the slightest portion of enfranchisement to the Irish landlord and tenant. They seemed to think that the Irish tenant should be treated as a child under paternal Government; but surely it was reasonable to suppose that a man who had risen in the social scale was able to protect himself.
§ LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that if the noble Marquess consulted the Irish farmers he would find that their ideas of what constituted liberty were very different from his. What he called liberty they would call servitude. The Government felt that, in the circumstances of Ireland, the tenant could not safely be left to arrange these matters with his landlord, and that, consequently, it was necessary to protect him.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYpointed out that the question of liberty could arise only in regard to future tenancies. He did not think the Irish farmers, if they rightly understood the case, would accept the noble Lord's strange and reactionary definition of liberty.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he understood that the effect of this clause was general, and that in every case where the valuation was over £150 the parties might contract themselves out of the Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had no doubt that the clause as it stood applied to present as well as to future tenancies. It appeared to him that the reasons urged against the Amendment moved in "another place" by a Relative of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) were equally applicable to the present proposal.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the Amendment did not deal with the same case as that dealt with by the Amendment referred to by the noble and learned Lord, and moved in "another place" by Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice. That Amendment was intended to prevent any tenant above the £100 limit from applying to the Court for a judicial rent. If it had been carried every tenant in Ireland above that limit would have been precluded from going to the Court, whether he wished to do so or not. The clause now before the House dealt only with purely voluntary arrangements made with the full consent of both parties. These could, no doubt, as the noble and learned Lord had stated, be made either with present as well as with future tenants; but it was quite clear that in the case of the former, the tenant, unless it were to his advantage, would decline to contract himself out of the Act, and would remain under the protection of the Court. The clause would, therefore, operate to the tenant's disadvantage only in the case of a new letting; and as to this, there was no reason why a free contract should not be made by a farmer rented at over £150. In any case, the Amendment was not in part materiâ with that mentioned by the noble and learned Lord.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause 31 (Emigration).
THE EARL OF CARNARVONmoved, in page 26, lines 2 and 3, to substitute the words "family or families" for the words "a sufficient number." The Amendment, if agreed to, would enable the Land Commission, on being satisfied that a family or families in any district desired to emigrate, to take the necessary measures for enabling them to do 1177 so. He objected strongly to the limitations which, had been introduced into the Emigration. Clause in "another place;" but this was the only Amendment which he should submit to their Lordships. It would, he explained, enable the Land Commission to make the family the unit of their system of emigration.
VISCOUNT MONCKregretted that the clause had ever been introduced, as a grant of £200,000 was so absurdly small that it might as well be struck out altogether. At the same time, he hoped the Government would accede to the very reasonable request of the noble Earl, and allow the Commissioners to deal not only with any State or Colony, or public Company, but also with individuals who could give reasonable security.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the Amendment of the noble Earl could not be accepted by the Government, for it would be inconsistent with the policy of the clause. It was not intended that the Court should go about Ireland and pick up one family here, and another family there, but to relieve the congestion in some particular districts. It seemed to him that if they were merely to relieve individual families, they would be simply putting money into the pockets of these families. With regard to the regrets that had been expressed at the smallness of the sum to be applied to emigration, he had to say that the whole scheme partook of the nature of an experiment; but if it should be found to work well and usefully, it would, no doubt, be made the basis of further experiment and expenditure.
§ LORD WAVENEYread a communication from Mr. Wilson, saying that there might be difficulty in dealing with immigrant families in Australia; but that individual immigrants of either sex could easily obtain employment. New South Wales had contributed £2,500,000 to the furtherance of emigration, and New Zealand £1,000,000. Those two countries and Canada were careful of the welfare of the emigrants on their arrival. The immigration which they encouraged was, in fact, such as would relieve the existing pressure on the labour market of this country.
§ LORD EMLYsaid, he was of opinion that the system of emigration which the 1178 noble Lord had sketched was likely to allure away the very men who might be called the bone and sinew of the land. The sort of emigration that was required was the emigration of families, and that would not be secured to the necessary extent by the Amendment of the noble Earl, which would only lead to a family here and a family there being selected. He regretted that the experiment was not to be tried on a larger scale than was proposed by the Bill, so as to remove from the West Coast of Ireland, from Mayo round to Cork, a large population which were now living in misery and discomfort.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, there was a general feeling in all parts of the House that a great deal of the chance of the successful working of the Bill in the direction of relieving congested districts in Ireland had been frustrated by the unfortunate concessions made by the Government in the other House. The futility of the clause in respect to emigration was deeply to be regretted. Every person who had commented on this subject outside of the mere political and Party fight of the day had recognized in the most earnest terms that nothing but a free and efficient system of emigration could be of any real service for Ireland in the long run. He asked whether the clause as now drawn would not be construed as a Parliamentary engagement not to go further in the promotion of emigration at another time—whether the words would not be held by persons with whom the Government had engaged, and with whom they dealt as power with power, that a promise had been made from which they could not recede? He suggested that after the Limitation Clause the words, ("unless Parliament shall otherwise order") should be inserted.
§ LORD CARLINGFORDpointed out that if the experiment proved successful, and that it was found desirable to go farther, Parliament would not be prevented by anything in the Bill from so doing.
THE MAEQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that that being so he did not see what objection could be offered to the words he had suggested. His object was to prevent it being said, with any force in future years, that the Government and Parliament had by the Bill pledged itself not to go further.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that this subject had been considered carefully in the other House. The noble Marquess knew the jealousy it had excited. He (the Earl of Kimberley) did not share that jealousy, and would, personally, have been glad to have seen a larger limit; but the proposal was in the nature of an experiment, and if it failed it would come to nothing, while, if it succeeded, there would be the strongest motive to go further.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the words in question were—
Provided always, that there shall not be expended by virtue of the authority hereby given a greater sum than two hundred thousand pounds.Those words did not prevent Parliament sanctioning a larger scheme hereafter if it thought proper to do so.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLremarked, that he had looked at this clause as simply the beginning of an experiment. He was perfectly satisfied his noble Friend knew there were a great number of the 600,000 families that had been referred to who, for their own good and the good of the country, could be removed. His noble Friend must know that this experiment ought to be tried on a larger scale; but the Government had sacrificed their own opinions on this matter to the state of Parties in the other House. Still, there was this to be said for it, that it gave room for an experiment on a small scale, and, if it succeeded, it might, with the consent of Parliament, be extended. He could not avoid this opportunity of expressing his belief, having some personal knowledge of a similar state of things in the Highlands of Scotland, that with regard to the class of tenants holding farms under £10 valuation, they could not hold their own under the economic conditions of the country, and any measure which gave them a permanent interest in the land was a pure delusion.
§ Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
§ Clause 56 (Definitions).
§ LORD CARLINGFORDmoved, in page 40, line 4, to leave out from ("which") to the end of the paragraph, and insert—
("The Land Commission may by order declare fit to be purchased as a separate estate for the purposes of this Act.")1180 That would enable the Commission to deal with any portion of an estate as an estate.
§ LORD EMLYsaid, that this Amendment would meet some of the greatest difficulties of the case, for the Commission would be able to deal with one or two, or three townlands, as they thought fit. The Amendment would make the clause far more operative than before.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 57 (Tenancies to which the Act does not apply).
LORD INCHIQUINmoved, in subsection 7, the omission from the words (' Any holding let by written contract of tenancy and therein expressed to be so let to the tenant")of the words from ("by written contract") to ("expressed to be so let")—the effect of which would be to exempt such tenancies from the operation of the Bill.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the clause was a copy of one in the Act of 1870, which had never been complained of.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the Act of 1870 was a very different measure. It was desirable that in future contracts should be in writing. If the Amendment were agreed to be would propose to add at the end of the subsection—("Provided that any such letting after the passing of this Act shall be in writing.")
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 207.)
§ Order of the Day for suspending Standing Order No. XXXV. read.
§ Moved, "That the said Standing Order be suspended."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
§ On question, resolved in the affirmative; Standing Order suspended accordingly.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Lord privy Seal.)
THE EARL OF CARNARVONIn rising now at the last stage of this very important measure I wish to trouble your Lordships with a few observations, although I do not wish to renew the discussion that has taken place on the clauses; for the Bill has been brought up to this House so late in the Session that it has been absolutely impossible to 1181 give it that full and careful consideration which such an exceptional, and, I may almost say, a revolutionary measure deserves. The first point which I wish to note is what has fallen from Her Majesty's Ministers. We have had a clear admission from them that this Bill does contain distinctly the principle of the "three F's." Secondly, we have learnt in no doubtful manner the value of pledges, promises, and assurances, given in other places, which almost constituted a bond on the faith of Parliament. Lastly, I hope I may say, without giving offence, I never remember since I have been in the House any great question on which such a feeble defence was offered by Her Majesty's Ministers for such a very sweeping measure. I never remember such an absence of argument in defence of a particular measure. On the other hand, I think the changes that have been made in the Bill constitute, in many respects, great improvements; but I should be wrong if I said that the structure of the Bill has been materially altered; the vicious principles which were in it originally it still contains. This House has been attacked by irresponsible speakers and writers for the alterations which it has ventured to make in a measure which is assumed to be far more popular than it is; but I believe it would have been truer and fairer to say that the moderation of this House, taking the question as a whole, has been singularly illustrated in what it has done. The effect of the changes made has been to make this very reactionary and sweeping legislation somewhat more experimental and tentative than it originally was; and, therefore, I look on the changes made with great satisfaction. The vicious principles to which such great objections have been taken, as much on the other side of the House as on this, remain in the Bill without much alteration. The Bill gives durability of tenure; it appoints a judicial tribunal to settle questions of rent between landlord and tenant; it takes away the landlord's rights without giving him compensation for improvements; and for the first time almost it divorces landlords from their duties and rights in connection with the soil. By the Bill we go as far as we can to establish a pauper-peasant proprietary in Ireland. I might add that it is a triumph 1182 for the Land League, while Ireland is left in the same distracted, convulsed, discreditable condition that it has been in for the last year. If it be so, it is surely not amiss to ask—what is all this for? I should say, judging from the discussions which have taken place, that there are three reasons. The first is some vague idea of preventing landlords in the future from committing any injustice to their tenants; secondly, there is a still more vague and fantastic notion of remedying some of the old injustice perpetrated in ancient times in Ireland; and, thirdly, the main argument and the staple of the eloquent speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was that it was hoped to pacify and to content Ireland. I will say a few words upon each of these. In the first place, the hope of preventing landlords from committing injustice on their tenants. My answer to that is that, practically speaking, there is no injustice at present prevailing. By the Prime Minister and by noble Lords, his Colleagues in this House, testimony has been borne to the conduct of Irish landlords on the whole, and the fairness and humanity with which they deal with their tenants. A recent Return, embracing 22 counties, shows that the proportion of evictions which could be fairly brought home to the conduct of the landlords was reduced to something considerably less than 1 per cent. But if you are by legislation to guard against the possible abuse by landlords of their rights or powers, why and how can you limit that legislation to them? I defy you to draw the line between the owners of land and the owners of other property. Or if, indeed, you are prepared to make any such distinction, you will find it very dangerous. I need, not tell the House that when you make laws regulating the profits of property, you place yourselves and the Constitution on a very slippery incline; and, more than that, you distinctly prepare Ireland for a very different form of Government from that which it has hitherto enjoyed. If it be true that you think freedom of contract is impossible in Ireland, then you mean that the Irish people are not fit for free institutions, and are not a free people. But when you come to the argument that you propose by legislation in 1881 to remedy the ancient misgovernment and misrule of Ireland, I wonder if anyone can seriously 1183 entertain such a notion. I am perfectly willing to admit that there has been in the past the greatest misgovernment, oppression, and cruelty displayed by England towards Ireland; but, granting that, what does it prove now? For the last 50 or 60 years England has by her Governments and Parliament loyally striven to efface the memory and trace of these ancient wrongs. She has given absolutely equal legislation to Ireland. She has never stinted money, sympathy, help in every way; and I am bound to say, during the last 12 months, Ireland has unhappily repaid her by, to use the words of the Prime Minister, "disabling, dishonouring, and degrading" the House of Commons. Ireland has disabled and dishonoured the House of Commons, and she has paralyzed the action of the Government, when she induced Her Majesty's Ministers to lay such legislation as this on the Table of the House. There is not, therefore, very much value to be attached to that argument. But then comes a contention, and a more important one, which was dwelt upon the other night with much effect and eloquence by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, when he told us that by this legislation you may hope to pacify and content the people of Ireland. What is really the chance of this? When I look back to the history of Ireland I see three influences at work there very plainly. In the first place, in all historical times Ireland has been the greatest difficulty of this country. Spenser, the poet and statesman of the Elizabethan age, opened his view of the state of Ireland by wondering how a country endowed with such gifts of nature and soil should be in such a state of desperate and hopeless disorder. So, too, the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis dwelt on the fact that if there were only 20 bad persons in a barony of Ireland it would be enough to set on fire the whole county, so inflammable are the people. Secondly, I know that just in proportion as the government of Ireland has been according to Irish ideas, so has been the misgovernment and misery of society. And just in proportion as there has been a firm and kindly Government, so has prosperity returned. Every one of those outrages which have been happening in Ireland, which, if they did not justify, yet caused, in a great measure, this legislation, are, down to their minutest details, of ancient date. 1184 They have been occurring for generations past. The only difference has been that in former times you had a strong and effective Government that gave no countenance to this notion of governing Ireland by Irish ideas. And this, with one exception, has been the invariable case in Ireland. That exception was the period when Tyrconnel was in power. Now, unfortunately, a different method has been adopted, and I have very great doubt of the result. When Tyrconnel governed the country according to Irish ideas I need not tell your Lordships that of all the miserable and disgraceful pages of English and Irish history, the page recording his Administration was, perhaps, the worst and most discreditable. But I am free to admit that when you have a very exceptional state of things your remedy must sometimes be exceptional. Great advantages are purchased by great sacrifices; and it is an extravagant price that Her Majesty's Government ask Parliament to pay. My Lords, nature has bound together these two Islands in an unhappy and ill-assorted union. It would have been better had Ireland been 1,000 miles away from the English coast. But this has not been so; and the great qualities which exist on either side of the Channel—qualities which might enrich and make happy both peoples—have been, by unhappy misrule and the malice of demagogues, perverted from a blessing into a curse. If, indeed, this Bill could set straight all the difficulties in the relations between England and Ireland, great as the price we are called on to pay, I should not think it too great. But, so far as I can understand it, the Bill will only aggravate every one of the difficulties and dangers with which we have to deal. I will mention one of these to which little allusion has been made in this House. For the last 40 or 50 years no one point has been more agreed to by men of all opinions than that a great source of mischief and danger to Ireland arises out of what has been called absenteeism. But this Bill makes absenteeism, hitherto occasional, permanent. You cannot expect that any landlord who is henceforward subject to the provisions of this measure will care to retain either his residence or his property in that country if he can avoid it. Who can hope that any improvements will be made by landlords which can 1185 possibly be avoided? If you expropriate the landlords, you at the same time expel capital from Ireland; but there is much more; remember that in all times the landlords have been the mainstay of the English connection. And when you have practically expropriated them, with their improvements, their better machinery, their better cultivation, I ask the House to consider what will be the means of maintaining the connection between England and Ireland, except what Mr. Burke calls "that tristis et luctuosa successio—a miserable series of Coercion Bills and English bayonets?" What better illustration of that than the course adopted by Mr. Parnell and other Members of his Party? You have already got, not to a revaluation or a reduction of rents, but to a cry for no rents at all; and instead of a message of peace you have incendiary proclamations and the shipment of infernal machines. Is there any reason then to hope that when this Bill becomes law it will fulfil the sanguine anticipations of its promoters? I believe there is scarcely a person outside this House—I am sure there is no one inside its walls if I except the occupants of the Treasury Bench—who expects that this Bill will produce the least improvement in Ireland. I ask, therefore, again, how is the Queen's Government to be carried on? I am sure this Bill will do nothing to maintain it; it is a terrible problem, one sufficient to tax the strength of the strongest and the wisdom of the wisest. I venture to think that this House, though it has been called "the House of Landlords," has dealt with this measure with the ability and knowledge which a House composed, in a great measure, of landlords must possess. I believe that this House has had this question long before its mind, and that it has endeavoured to look at it in the broadest and largest point of view. But I am persuaded that the question involved is not merely a change in the relations of landlord and tenant, but the far larger question how, in future, Ireland is to be dealt with. I will not pursue that subject; but I will only say this—that if we turn to the temper of the people, the result is, to my mind, very little more encouraging. We see a forgetfulness of all authority, and the belief that if men will not obey the law, the law must be altered for them. Never 1186 since society began did any good proceed from such a combination as this. But we are in a great difficulty, a difficulty which no man can overlook, and which no sober person can under-estimate. We are on the verge of civil war; and though I deplore the madness of the people and the weakness of the Government, still I think this House has acted wisely in accepting this measure, and in now sending it down to the House of Commons. We accept it as an experiment—a very great experiment. If that experiment should issue in prosperity and peace, in better relations between England and Ireland, and the happiness which flows from a united and contented people, then there will not be one individual in this House who will not rejoice in such a result, whatever his own prophecies and convictions may have been. But, on the other hand, if this Bill becomes with the Irish people the ground for fresh demands, further agitation, and greater friction between Ireland and England; if affairs 'grow worse instead of better, more irritating, dangerous, serious, then the people of this country, and not this House alone, will have to face the alternative—either a total severance of their relations with England, or a return to the older and more severe method of government.
§ EARL GRANVILLEI wish, with the permission of the House, to make a few observations on the speech we have just heard. The noble Earl opposite began his remarks by asking, with an air of innocent wonderment, what this Bill was for. I cannot help thinking that your Lordships, who unanimously passed the second reading of the Bill, have some greater idea of its purpose and contents than the noble Earl. There is another question that I should like to ask. I should like to know what this speech of the noble Earl at this stage of our proceedings is for? I own I am at a loss to understand this, except what I may gather towards my enlightenment from my own personal experience. I lately had a smart attack of gout—which your Lordships kindly took a sympathetic interest in. That attack came out, I am grateful to say. What might have happened if it had been driven in I do not know; but it did come out, however, and now I am here more or less able to stand on my legs. I can only explain my noble Friend's speech 1187 by this. If I have any remark to offer upon my noble Friend's political career, it is that he has generally been in too great a hurry and too impulsive in what he was about. But in this case, whether under compulsion or not, he has evidently delayed a carefully elaborated and prepared speech for the second reading until this, the last stage. What the result would have been if this speech had been entirely driven in, and had not come out at all, I leave your Lordships to imagine. The noble Earl having had the advantage of hearing everything that has been said on the subject in your Lordships' House—an advantage which it has been my misfortune not to have had, though I have carefully read the report of all that has been said—made a great point, indeed, of this—that it was now admitted by Her Majesty's Government that this Bill gave the "three F's." I am not aware that anyone made an admission to that effect. I certainly consider the speech of my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, notwithstanding the contemptuous allusion which the noble Earl thought fit to make in regard to every speech in favour of the Bill, was a very admirable statement of the objects and arguments in favour of this Bill. In the course of that speech, my noble Friend said that he himself was not very greatly afraid of the '' three F's;" but he particularly stated that the two first F's were in this Bill, and that, although great security was obtained for the tenant, fixity of tenure was not in it. I do not think it would be right to weary your Lordships with a discussion of all the details of the measure. Your Lordships are aware that nearly all the ablest Members of this House have spoken on this subject, and unlike the noble Earl, who is so condemnatory of those who have opposed him, it appears to me that most of those speeches were even above the average ability of the speakers who made them. Some of these speeches were made, I consider, with great severity; others, I think, were made with very great and marked moderation, though in opposition to the Bill. Indeed, it is perfectly obvious that to the great majority of your Lordships the Bill, abstractedly considered, is displeasing; but, influenced by the large, liberal, and statesmanlike views put forward by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), 1188 your Lordships thought right not to do that which the speech of the noble Earl really went to, if it went to anything at all—the complete rejection of what he termed an inefficient and revolutionary measure. Your Lordships thought it better to give a second reading to a Bill which I have not the slightest doubt you are going to read a third time. It is not for me to criticize the number and the importance of some of the Amendments which your Lordships have introduced into it. Very weighty advice was given to your Lordships not to increase the number of these Amendments; but your Lordships have taken a course which you thought it was your duty and your right to take. The Bill will go down to '' another place.'' It will be carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government what proposals they will have to make to the other House of Parliament on the subject. There will be no feeling of hostility to your Lordships. But your Lordships will feel that when they are told that this is a measure which your Lordships pass somewhat unwillingly, but which, for large and liberal reasons, your Lordships think ought to be passed, leaving the whole responsibility to Her Majesty's Government to carry out the measure; that, in the interests of Ireland, it is of the greatest possible importance that Her Majesty's Government should carefully consider and weigh those Amendments that have been made. THE EARL OF PORTARLINGTON said, that the country was looking with the greatest hope for the passing of the measure then under the consideration of their Lordships, which, he believed, would do incalculable good. The priests of Ireland had, in many instances, joined the Land League because their people had done so, and that, therefore, they—the priests—feared they would lose their hold over them if they did not also join it. It would be bad, and a hard thing, if the priests lost their hold over the people. The moment the Bill passed the priests would say to their flocks that it was a large, a wise, and a generous measure, and they would make the farmers understand its value and induce them to abandon the Land League. But the Land League was receiving some £90,000 a-year. That was at present a financial success which the League would not like to give up; but that success would eventually wither. He expected 1189 that there would be great contentment, and that the Bill would cut to the very centre and tend to destroy that spirit of unquiet which had so much troubled Ireland during the last few years. While approving of the Emigration Clause, he would suggest to the Government that, in preference to it, they should, by means of a grant, endeavour to more fully develop the fisheries of Ireland, thereby affording employment to a large number of persons; and then there would be no need for emigration.
Lord HOUGHTON and Lord BRABOURNErose together, and there were loud calls for both. Neither giving way,
§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved that Lord Brabourne be heard.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that as no one in that part of the House had spoken in this debate, and as he had endeavoured to form an independent judgment on the Bill, he was anxious to address a few remarks to their Lordships. He regretted the speech which they had heard from the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), for as they had agreed to pass the Bill the less they inveighed against it the better. As he understood it, the principle of the measure was the formation of a new Court in Ireland—a Triumvirate—that was to manage the distribution of the property of the country. All he could say was that he hoped that the difficulties which would beset that tribunal would not approximate to the difficulties with which the Triumvirate of Ministers who took care of the Bill in its passage through their Lordships' House had had to contend. Of course, he did not say that the Lord Privy Seal, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had shown no ability in argument; but they were placed in a position of difficulty. Assailed in front by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, and the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns), taken in the rear at the same time by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) and the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), their late Colleagues; and oppressed throughout with the incomprehensibility which seemed inherent to the very nature of this Bill, they had, indeed, deserved the pity of the 1190 House. But, in truth, these noble Lords had an impossible task to perform. They had to show, not only that the same property could at the same time belong to two different persons, but that, without diminishing the total value of that property, it was possible to increase the value of the portion which belonged to one person without any diminution of the value of the portion which belonged to the other. Their difficulty was indeed great, and the chief fear he had was that two years would not elapse before the difficulty of working the Bill would turn out to be so great that it would become absolutely necessary to introduce another measure to explain and amend it. He did not wish to say anything more against the Bill. His principal reason for rising was to state what, as it appeared to him, their Lordships had really done. In five sentences he thought he could tell their Lordships what they had done, and why what they had done ought to be accepted and embodied in the Bill. In the first place, they had determined that property legally purchased and duly paid for should not, to the loss of the purchaser, be handed back to the seller as a free gift by the Legislature. Secondly, they had determined that contracts entered into in strict compliance with the law should not be broken upon the application of one of the parties to such contracts. Thirdly, having constituted a new Court, they had provided that the parties who were to make use of it—namely, the landlords and tenants—should come before it upon something like an equal footing, and that the landlord should not be obliged to increase his rent as a preliminary step to applying to the Court. Fourthly, they had given to the Court some indication—although no express direction—as to the principles upon which it was to proceed, and they had struck out words which had a tendency to confuse. Fifthly, their Lordships had given an appeal from the decisions of this new Court; and, considering that some of the questions which would come before it were questions which had never come before a Court before, upon which there was no strict rule of law to direct and no previous decisions to guide the Court, the refusal of such an appeal would have been nothing but an injustice. He had already seen hard words used against their Lordships generally, and against 1191 the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in particular. He had formed an entirely opposite opinion with regard to the action of the noble Marquess. [Ironical laughter from the Ministerial Benches.] He was sorry that noble Lords were incapable of appreciating nobility of action on the part of an opponent. But the moderation which the noble Marquess had shown in deferring his own opinion to the opinion of the large majority of the House of Commons and of the Irish Representatives, the discretion he had shown in only attempting to eliminate from the Bill those provisions which most flagrantly offended against the principles of law, justice, and equity, and the clearness with which he placed the real issues involved in the Bill before the House, entitled him to the thanks of their Lordships and the gratitude of his countrymen. One more thing he (Lord Brabourne) desired to say. His noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley) had recently taunted them with being a House of landowners. He (Lord Brabourne) had sometimes read such taunts in the columns of second-rate newspapers, or in the speeches of irresponsible orators upon Provincial platforms. He supposed it was his inexperience of their Lordships' House which caused him to feel great surprise when such a taunt was uttered by a Minister of the Crown. For what did it really mean, if it meant anything at all? A tailor was not held to be disqualified from judging of clothes because he was a tailor—the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack was not disqualified for making laws because he was a lawyer; and when it was said or insinuated that because their Lordships were landlords, and consequently knew a great deal about land and its management, they were disqualified for this kind of legislation, what was really meant was that their minds were too much warped and prejudiced to enable them to deal honestly with the question, and this he (Lord Brabourne) believed to be an utterly unjust charge, and one which they would all repudiate. He had only to add that he believed that if Her Majesty's Government fairly considered the Amendments made in the Bill they would find that they greatly improved the measure, and that if they were adopted, and the Bill suffered to pass into law as it left their Lordships' 1192 House, it would be a measure, not, indeed, conspicuous for its fair dealing with all parties concerned, but one which had been brought by their Lordships to bear at least some distant resemblance to an equitable settlement of a difficult question.
LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that there had been strong representations to them from the Government, showing the painful position in which they were placed during the last few months; and he defied them to say that, in any part of any country of the world, the landlords could have exhibited so much moderation and good humour as the Irish landlords had done in Committee of that House. He did not, like his noble Friend who had just sat down, hold in any special admiration the conduct of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury). But it had been characterized by a total absence of anything like violent speeches or altercations. He could not but think that their Lordships had been considerably influenced in their decisions by the circumstance that this Bill had come from the House of Commons almost with universal consent. Why had it been so? It was because the House of Commons contained a very large number of most important Irish, landlords, and the bulk of them had been generous and appreciative towards the Bill. The measure would go to Ireland as a message of peace and conciliation from the landed proprietors to the Irish tenantry, and he did not concur with his noble Friend (Lord Brabourne) that within two years it would fail. It was the duty of everyone to give the measure a fair trial; and the Bill, in his opinion, would commend itself to the political feeling of all classes.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHwished to say that he trusted the Bill would not in the future be regarded as a precedent. Having, with a vast number of Peers on his side of the House, foregone his better judgment in consenting to this measure, he regretted that there should be indications that the hope upon which his conduct had been based might not be fulfilled. The hope was that the Bill would produce tranquillity in Ireland; but it had been rendered fainter during the last few days by the remarks that had been made by the agitators who were responsible for the disorder reigning in Ireland.
LORD DENMANwould say "Not Content," to enable him to enter a protest on the Journals of the House against this defective measure. He complained that the constitution of the Court was very limited without the co-operation of Boards of Guardians, and contained no provisions for retiring pensions for the Commissioners, except for the chief, who was made a Judge of the High Court of Justice. At the same time, he sincerely hoped that Ireland would before long enjoy greater happiness than any which ever could be expected from the effects alone of the measure now before their Lordships.
§ On question, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments, and passed and sent to the Commons.
§ House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Fire o'clock.