HL Deb 03 March 1887 vol 313 cc2-27
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)

My Lords, in rising to invite your Lordships once again to address yourselves to legislative proposals for dealing with the land and land tenure in Ireland, I do not intend to waste the time of the House with protestations of my inability and incompetence to deal with a subject which the greatest master of legislation probably of this or any other country has lately described as the most difficult, and most complex, subject with which in the long course of his political career he has ever had to deal. No one can realize more fully than I do the great difficulty of the task which at short notice, and in circumstances of some peculiarity, it has fallen upon me to perform. I shall endeavour to do my duty to the House by stating as suc- cinctly, as straightforwardly, and as clearly as I can the position of the Government with respect to this important question, and the provisions of the Bill which I have the honour to ask the House to read for the first time, and in doing so, I shall simply throw myself upon the indulgence and forbearance of the House. My Lords, it will be some relief to the House that I should at once state that it is not my intention, in dealing with this matter, to ask your Lordships to revert to the earlier chapters of Irish history, to which it has been the custom of all speakers on the Irish Question to invite their hearers to turn their attention. I shall not ask your Lordships to review the events that took place in the golden era of comfort and happiness of which we have heard so much lately. I believe I shall be able to address myself to this subject without once calling attention to that important, but, in my opinion, overrated event—the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam. I have limited my notice, and I intend to limit my remarks, to the more recent periods of legislation with reference to the Land Question for this reason. Nothing has appeared to me more remarkable in the study which I have been able to give to this question than the entire absence of unity, not only of detail, but of principle, which has characterized legislation with reference to land in Ireland, at all events, during the first half of this century. Up to and including 1860 the principles upon which that legislation was founded and guided may be roughly stated to have been those of the Common Law, upon which land legislation in this country was also founded. My Lords, in 1860, the Act which was passed for the reform of the tenure of land in Ireland entirely reversed the principle upon which, up to that time, legislation had been founded. It substituted for feudalism and the tenure of the Common Law a principle of absolute or implied freedom of contract; and for 10 years, between 1860 and 1870, it may be said that the law relating to land in Ireland rested solely and entirely on freedom of contract. After 10 years the policy was again completely reversed, and we come then to the great Act for which we are indebted to the late Prime Minister (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), which, if it did not reverse, at all events largely limited, altered, and controlled the principle of free contract upon which, up to that time, legislation had been founded. I need hardly remind you of the provisions of this great Act. My object is only to show that the principle then adopted by Mr. Gladstone has been maintained ever since. The Act of 1870, as your Lordships know, legalized the Ulster custom and other customs wherever they existed in Ireland, and in the absence of any custom it gave the tenants two great rights, which constituted in themselves a tenure, apart from absolute freedom of contract. It gave him compensation for improvements and compensation for disturbance. I need hardly refer to the Bright Clauses of that Act for purchase, because the subject of purchase is one with which the Government has to deal as a separate question, and on a subsequent occasion. From and after the year 1870 we appear to have arrived at last at a sound and permanent principle of policy. The Act of 1881, under which the tenure of land is at present regulated in Ireland, to use the words of Mr. Gladstone, "limited and regulated still further the principle of freedom of contract." It enacted what wore known as the "three F's." It gave to the tenant free sale of his interest to a third party, under restrictions and with the consent or subject to the veto of his landlord. It gave fair rents, by the establishment of Courts which were empowered to revise rents. It gave fixity of tenure, by constituting judicial terms which were vested in the tenants subject to the special performance of the condition under which they held. Gene-rally, it may be said, that the Act of 1881 completely abolished freedom of contract, and created that system under which we are at present, I was about to say, suffering—namely, that of dual ownership. My object in the cursory recapitulation of these Acts has been to point out the principle upon which legislation is now founded, and the principle, therefore, upon which the Government are constrained to act in dealing with this great question. It has been said that the aim and object of legislation during the years to which I have just referred has been to improve the position of the rich at the expense of the position of the poor. My Lords, if that had been said merely by those whose object it is to find fault with all legislation which has received the ap- proval of Parliament, I should take no further notice of that remark; but I cannot refrain from expressing my regret that this opinion has received apparently the sanction of a gentleman who, from his official position and the high character which he enjoys throughout the country, is entitled to the greatest respect. I refer to General Buller, the present Under Secretary for Ireland. My Lords, it is unnecessary for me to say, in entering my protest against one sentiment which he has expressed in the evidence before the Royal Commission, that I do so with the greatest possible respect and reluctance. General Buller is reported to have said, in reply to a question— You have got very ignorant poor people, and the law should look after them, instead of which it has only looked after the rich. Now, the late Prime Minister, as I understand, has used this answer of General Buller as an argument to show that the present condition of the law in Ireland is such as to require remedies of the most drastic character. Nothing I can say would carry the weight which attaches to any statement by General Buller. But I must call to my assistance the evidence of the one man in the whole country who is best qualified by his antecedents and authority to give an answer to General Buller, and to explain what in reality has been the object of our recent legislation in Ireland. I need hardly say I refer to Mr. Gladstone himself. Mr. Gladstone, in 1881, in introducing his Land Bill, said— It is commonly said that the iniquity of the Irish Land Laws is a main reason for legislation on Irish Land. Now, Sir, equity and iniquity may be in great part a comparative; but I must say that if we are to proceed on that principle of comparison, I think it is an exaggeration to describe the Land Laws of Ireland as iniquitous. …. The Land Laws of Ireland chiefly differ from the Land Laws of England in the very special provisions which they present to us on behalf of the tenant."—(3 Hansard, [260] 891.) It is a very poor compliment to the right hon. Gentleman, after all the efforts which his genius has made during the past years, efforts in which he was strenuously supported by noble Lords opposite, to say that the laws at present in force in Ireland are made for the rich at the expense of the poor. The Act of 1881 forms the basis of the legislation which Her Majesty's Government now propose to the House. When they came into Office they found themselves face to face with a condition of things which I will not detain your Lordships with describing, for it is known to the House. In the difficulty which that state of things created, the Government determined that before they proceeded with any legislation with regard to land in Ireland, they would advise Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission, the Reference to which I may briefly state. My Lords, that Commission was directed to inquire to what extent, if any, and in what parts of Ireland, the operation of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, was affected either by combinations to resist payment of rent or by an exceptional fall in the prices of produce. That Commission consisted of five gentlemen, and it sat for five months. There is something pathetic in the manner in which the Commission described the labours through which they passed. They spent five months in reviewing all those abstruse questions; they sat 60 times, and examined 300 witnesses, whose evidence fills 1,000 pages of that vast Blue Book which is in the hands of your Lordships. At the conclusion of their labours, those five Commissioners produced three Reports, one of them differing only slightly from the Report of the majority. They reported first that the operation of the Land Act of 1831 had been affected by combinations, except in the case of Ulster; secondly, that Boycotting had largely prevailed; thirdly, that there had been a considerable fall in prices of produce in Ireland; and they made a further Report with reference to the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, which it is not my province to-night to touch upon. That being the gist of the Report of the Commissioners, I will state shortly their recommendations. In the first place, they recommended that a shorter period for the revision of judicial rents than 15 years should be fixed; and they recommended that that revision should take place every five years. They further recommended that such revision should be specially applied to rents fixed prior to 1886. They also recommended that the judicial rents should be fixed with relation to the price of produce—what is called a "produce rent." My Lords, before I pass to the further recommendations of the Commissioners, I think it well to say that this recommendation is one to which Her Majesty's Government have found it impossible to give effect. I can hardly give the House all the reasons which have guided Her Majesty's Government to this decision; but I think it will be sufficient if I say broadly that the Government regard that period of 15 years, during which the judicial rents were to run, and before which they were not to be revised, as a period which was intended by Parliament to be a permanent settlement, and one with which it would be highly inexpedient to tamper. The Commissioners themselves have said, in their recommendation, that it is most undesirable to disturb an arrangement which was understood to be a permanent settlement. Further than that, we have the dissentient Report of my noble Friend behind me (Lard Milltown), who has given strong reasons why it is inexpedient that this recommendation should be adopted. He argued that high prices were very often concurrent with bad years, and that the tenant might thus have a high rent fixed in a time of great distress. He also raised a point which is, I think, ingenious— namely, that you ought in this matter to consider the value of the tenant-right which is in the tenant. That is to say, that if the tenant has the right to sell his interest in his holding, and, if that holding is subject to a revision of the judicial rent within a period shorter than 15 years, you are bound to consider that there is a possibility, if not a probability, that the amount of rent might be increased. It is obvious that the tenant-right, in the event of such a rise in rent, would be decreased. We have another witness to the undesirability of carrying out this recommendation of the Commission, and that witness is no less a person than Lord Hartington. In a speech he made last night, he spoke as follows: — It appears to me that in spite of all this it is an absolutely open question whether, in the first place, rents are excessive in Ireland, and, in the second place, whether, if excessive, such excessive rents are being exacted. Therefore, it may be— probably is—wise and reasonable for Parliament to abstain from any attempt to deal anew with the settlement of rents fixed by the Irish Land Act of 1881. My Lords, more than that, if you were to disturb a settlement intended to be permanent and guaranteed by Parliament, you would lead the Irish tenants and people to believe that there was no prospect of any finality in regard to legislation on the question of Irish land. The Royal Commission further recommended that the leaseholders should be admitted to the benefits of the Act of 1881, that a power should be given to the middleman to make a surrender of his interest, and that in cases of ejectment for non-payment of rent the period of redemption should run from the date of the verdict. I do not think it necessary to trouble your Lordships with any of the other recommendations of the Commission. Now, my Lords, with this Report before them the Government determined at once to deal with the state of things which was created by the Land Act of 1881. There is, however, one subject mentioned in the Report which, perhaps, I had better at once deal with and clear out of the way before I proceed further. That, my Lords, is the great question of land purchase. I have referred, in passing, very briefly to what are known as the Bright Clauses in the Act of 1870. Those provisions were supplemented by the further clauses enabling advances to be made to tenants in the Act of 1881. The Bright Clauses appear to have been practically useless; indeed, they appear to have been used in about 600 or 700 cases all told. Under the Act of 1881 more advantage was taken by the tenants of the facilities of purchase offered to them; but it was not until the Act of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was passed that any tangible advance was made in assisting the tenants of Ireland to purchase their holdings. My Lords, that Act met with a considerable amount of success; but it is the opinion of the Government that this question requires a still greater amount of attention. My Lords, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the time has arrived when a further large measure must be formulated dealing with the question of purchase by tenants of their holdings in Ireland. To that we mainly look for the settlement of the great questions which unhappily disturb that country; and in that alone I believe will be found a final solution. The question of land in Ireland will then be dealt with by the Government in two parts—the first in a Bill, which I have now the honour to lay before your Lordships, which will deal with questions arising out of the Act of 1881—questions of considerable urgency and great importance. It will be followed by a measure which, as I said before, will accomplish that which will alone permanently settle the difficulties with which we have to contend— in other words, the abolition of the dual ownership created by the Act of 1881. I will now proceed to explain to your Lordships the provisions of the Bill which I am about to introduce. First, I will endeavour to make it clearer to your Lordships by dividing the three principal subjects with which this Bill proposes to deal as follows:—First, questions with regard to tenure; secondly, questions relating to appeals; and, thirdly, questions relating to equitable jurisdiction. Under the head of tenure, the first subject which I will approach, and with which I think I need not occupy your Lordships at great length, is the question, recommended by the Royal Commissioners, of the admission of leaseholders to the benefits of the Act of 1881. The Bill proposes that those holding leases in Ireland who were excluded by the Bill of Mr. Gladstone in 1881 should now be included in the provisions of this measure. These leaseholders number, roughly speaking, about 150,000, and I think that when the Bill is reviewed it will be found that there is no part of it which will have such a general acceptation or be so important in its results as that which I have just mentioned. My Lords, there is a clause which provides that leaseholders in bonâ fide occupation of their holdings shall, on the passing of this Act, be deemed to be tenants of their present tenancies, in like manner and subject to the same conditions as if their leases had expired on the passing of this Act. I do not think it is necessary to justify this proposition. I am aware that Mr. Gladstone, when he introduced his Bill in 1881, appeared to think that there was some principle involved in the exclusion of leaseholders from the Act. No doubt it was desirable in the course of that process to which I have before alluded, the gradual abolition of freedom of contract—it was desirable, at any rate, to appear to retain some shred of that freedom in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. But I cannot say that even in his exclusion of leaseholders he has altogether refrained from dealing with them, because leaseholders under the contracts into which they had entered were bound at the expiration of their term to give up their holdings freely to the landlord who was owner; but under the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman in 1881 he broke to this extent into the conditions of the tenancy of the leasehold, that he enacted that at the expiration of the term the tenants should be considered as tenants from year to year. It is an absolute fact that in excluding leaseholders from the Act of 1881 Mr. Gladstone did not save his principle by excluding them entirely, and, under these circumstances and for these reasons, however imperfectly described, Her Majesty's Government recommend that leaseholders should in future be admitted to the benefits of the Act; thus there will no longer be two classes of tenants living side by side under entirely different conditions, the one class having rights which are denied to the other. Without further remark I will pass on to the further clauses of the Bill. There is a provision with reference to town parks which may puzzle some of your Lordships who are not conversant with the affairs of Ireland as much as I confess it puzzled me. The Royal Commission recommended that, under certain limitations, town parks should be included in the Act of 1881. I understand that a town park in Ireland is a holding in the immediate neighbourhood of a town. So long as it is occupied by a resident in that town it is considered a town park, and, being so, was excluded from the operation of the Act of 1881. The complaint made by tenants of these parks is this— that because they happen to live in a town, because they occupy a farm the occupation of which they claim to be strictly in accordance with what is legally designated a farm holding, yet, because that holding is in the neighbourhood of a town, they are precluded from going to Court to have a fair rent fixed. As I said before, the Commission recommended that town parks should be included in the Bill.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN

Under certain limitations.

EARL CADOGAN

Under certain limitations. Well, my Lords, we did not agree that it would be possible to admit all the town parks; but what we do mean to do is to alter the definition of town park in our Act; and in the future, under this Act, the definition will be limited to those which are used as accommodation land, and not as a farm. To that extent the recommendations of the Royal Commission will be adopted. I now come to a more important provision which is contained in the Bill, one which refers to proceedings in ejectment—in other words, to evictions—a subject which has attracted so much and so widespread attention in the country during the last 12 months. It is hardly necessary for me in such an Assembly as this to enter at any length into an explanation of the right of ejectment, or, as it is more generally called, eviction. It is obvious that the right of eviction— which is simply the right of the owner to re-enter upon the occupation of his property when the tenant has forfeited the occupation by the omission to fulfil the conditions under which he has contracted to occupy—is a provision which may be said to be the only ultimate resort when the landowner fails to exact from the tenant the fulfilment of the terms of the occupation. It is difficult for me, my Lords, to deal with this subject without, perhaps, exciting sensibilities upon one side or the other. No one is more ready than I am to acknowledge that, taken altogether, it may be said that the landlords of Ireland in times past, and in recent times, have, with some notable exceptions, exercised this right, which legally belongs to them, with mercy and with forbearance. At the same time, scenes have taken place which it is impossible for us not to notice; and feelings on this subject have been aroused with which any Government, to whichever side in politics it might belong, is bound to do its best to deal. I may say further than this, that the power of eviction and the exercise of it is, in our view, not limited merely to the freewill of the landlord who exercises the right. It is impossible for any impartial observer of ejectments in Ireland not to notice that there is one potent factor in reference to this matter, to which I think attention has been insufficiently drawn—namely, the establishment by law of a six months' period of redemption. A six months' period is granted to defaulting tenants, within which they are entitled to re-enter and to redeem the interest from which they have been temporarily evicted. The effect of this period of redemption has been this— that in order to make this six months' period of redemption run— at the end of which the landlord can finally exercise his right of dispossessing the tenant of his holding—it is necessary under the present law for the landlord to take proceedings and obtain a judgment in ejectment; and, not only that, but he must actually execute the judgment. Not only must judgment be obtained, but the landlord must exercise his right of ejectment before the six months' period of redemption is permitted to begin to run. See the position in which that places many landlords in Ireland. They do not object to the period of redemption being postponed. The landlord who has obtained judgment in ejectment cannot always exercise his own discretion as to when he executes that judgment, for he is often forced to execute it in order to make the six months' period of redemption begin to run. The Commissioners recommend that in cases of judgments for non-payment of rent the period of redemption should run from the time of verdict or decree, and not from the execution of judgment. We propose that notice shall be issued by the landlord, in a form which will be found in the Schedule of the Bill, when he obtains a writ in ejectment from the Court; that the landlord shall be required to serve that notice upon the tenant in the manner prescribed by the Court; that when the tenant receives that notice he shall, ipso facto, become a caretaker, and that the prescribed six months within which redemption can take place shall commence to run from that day. I should like to point out to the House the benefit that will accrue to both the landlords and tenants under the provision which I have explained. The House will perceive that the recommendation of the Commission was that the period of redemption should commence to run from the date of the decree, which would leave the tenant in a worse position than that which he now occupies, as it would be necessary, if the recommendation of the Commissioners were adopted, for the landlord to eject the tenant immediately after the decree was issued. Under the present proposal the six months for redemption will commence to run with the serving of the notice upon the tenant, and thus the tenant need not be evicted, while the landlord will be saved the trouble and expense of evicting the tenant, who will, ipso facto, become a caretaker without having been first evicted. I do not think that I am overstating the case when I say that the effect of this proposed provision will be to reduce the number of evictions by one-half. I cannot give the House the exact figures relating to the subject, but I do not think that I am far wrong when I say that nearly four-fifths of the evictions in Ireland have occurred at the time of the execution of the judgment in ejectment, and not at the expiration of the six months' period for redemption. I, of course, admit that it will still be in the power of the landlord to evict the tenant after he becomes a caretaker, as he can at present, but the tenant, in that case, will still be entitled to his six months' period for redemption. My belief is that in the end this provision will be found to be of great advantage to both the parties concerned. Under the present system the tenant has to be evicted in the first place, before he can be re-admitted as a caretaker, whereas under this provision he will, ipso facto, upon the receipt of the notice, become a caretaker without having been evicted. The next class with whom the Bill proposes to deal is that of the middle-man. I am not sure that the middle-man will excite feelings of much sympathy in the minds of Englishmen, as they may, perhaps, not entirely appreciate the position he occupies in Ireland. They are a class of men not specially in favour in the Metropolis. The position of the middle-man in Ireland is this— he takes a holding from the landowner and he sub-lets it to different tenants. These sub-tenants may, under the Act of 1881, go into the Land Court and get their rents reduced, when the middle-man may find himself placed in the unfortunate position of finding that his sub-tenants have got their rents which they have to pay him reduced, while he himself is debarred from getting his own chief rent reduced, so that it may be that the rents he receives are less than which he pays to his superior landlord. This state of things is believed by Her Majesty's Government to constitute a genuine grievance on the part of the middle-man, and, therefore, it is proposed by the Bill that where a middle-man finds himself in this uncomfortable position he shall be entitled to surrender his tenancy under certain conditions. I shall occupy your Lordships' attention for only a short time in dealing with the second great division of the Bill, which relates to the question of appeals. In 1884 Sir George Trevelyan called the attention of Parliament to the necessity for strengthening the Court of Appeal in the performance of its important duties, and he introduced a Bill to carry out his object. That Bill, however, did not obtain the assent of Parliament, and there is no doubt that some complaints have been made as to the inadequate manner in which the appeal business in connection with the Land Act has been carried on. We propose to enable the Lord Lieutenant to constitute an Appeal Commission consisting of two Divisions, and to associate with them the ordinary Judges of the Supreme Court or the most experienced of the County Court Judges, and we propose to return to the original practice of the Land Commission and to allow the parties to employ valuers free of expense in all cases where they think it necessary. I now come to a subject which, I confess, I approach with some fear lest I shall be unable clearly to convey our intentions to the House—namely, the equitable jurisdiction which we propose to set up under this Bill. By the term equitable jurisdiction I mean proposals for the relief of insolvent tenants, especially those who have become insolvent through no fault of their own, but in consequence of misfortunes over which they have had no control. In dealing with this question I must again refer to the speech which was delivered last night by Lord Hartington. He said— I cannot entertain any doubt that if Parliament and the Government see their way to make some alteration for the recovery of rents and which will regulate evictions, if they can see their way to conferring upon some competent legal authority or Courts of Law some greater equitable powers, which shall give an assurance to the country that the extreme remedy of eviction shall only be resorted to when the process is not only legal but also just and equitable—any such change in the law, though I cannot hope that it would satisfy public opinion in Ireland, will go far to satisfy the opinion and the conscience of the people of the United Kingdom. It has been urged that there is no method of relief held out to the insolvent tenant, except that of going into the Bankruptcy Court; but the view of the Government is that when you speak of insolvent tenants you are speaking of persons who may be divided into at least three classes. There are, in the first place, the cases in which tenants are insolvent from causes not only over which they have no control but which are merely temporary, and who, if reasonable time is afforded them, will be able to meet their liabilities. There are, in the second place, those who are in-solvent from no fault of their own, and who have no reasonable prospect of ever meeting their liabilities. In the third place, there are the cases of those who are unable to meet their liabilities from causes arising from their own improvidence and extravagance, and for whom it is not possible to claim the sympathy either of Parliament or the nation. With regard to the first of these classes —namely, the tenants who are insolvent but who might be able to meet their liabilities if reasonable time were given them—the Government do not think it necessary that they should be driven into the Bankruptcy Court. In such cases Her Majesty's Government propose that the County Court Judge, while granting the landlord the judgment to which he is entitled, shall direct a reasonable stay of execution; and for as long a period as the Judge shall determine the tenant shall not be removed from possession of his holding. It is hoped that during the period thus given a reasonable settlement may, in most cases, be arrived at between the landlord and the tenant, and that many evictions will thereby be prevented. In dealing with the other two classes, who are to a certain extent driven into bankruptcy, we provide that the County Court Judge shall have the power, for all purposes for which the Bankruptcy Court exists in Dublin, of a Judge in Bankruptcy in his own County Court, and that his jurisdiction shall extend over his own county. As the Bankruptcy Law is only administered in Dublin, the cost to a tenant who voluntarily goes into bankruptcy or the landlord who drives the tenant into bankruptcy is larger than is desirable, inasmuch as the cases to which the provisions of the Bill apply are limited to holdings, the rental of which does not exceed £50 per annum. Therefore, by giving County Court Judges jurisdiction in every county, we have to a great extent simplified the jurisdiction of the Court of Bankruptcy, and brought it within the reach of tenants all over Ireland. With reference to the class of insolvent tenants who are insolvent from circumstances over which they have no control, and from no fault of their own, we propose as follows:—Where inability to pay arises from no misconduct or improvidence on the part of the tenant the County Court Judge may order a composition of the old debts, including the rent, and permit the tenant to continue in occupation of his holding so long as the Judge may determine, paying for the use of it a fair rent to be fixed by the Court. The general principle upon which this clause proceeds is that considerable indulgence may be shown to a man whose insolvency may be innocent, and whose good faith and rectitude are established to the satisfaction of the Court. And lastly, in the case of those insolvent tenants who have arrived at the last state of insolvency from their own fault, extravagance, idleness, or other causes, they will be left to the operation of the ordinary law of the land; and with reference to them the only change made is that the course of bankruptcy will, as I have said before, lie in the office of the County Court Judge who administers in each county in Ireland. These are the chief provisions with respect to the equitable jurisdiction to be found in the Bill. I am very sensible that in a matter of such extreme difficulty and importance it would have been better if your Lordships had before you the exact terms in which the clauses are drawn. There is one other matter to which I must refer before I conclude, and that is the question of the remission of the rates to landlords who, from intimidation and other similar causes, do not receive the rents upon which they are rated. This relief will operate in two cases. In the first place, if a tenant is in occupation and does not pay rent, the landlord will be exempted from rates. If the land remains unoccupied in consequence of a system of intimidation which prevents the landlord from letting his land, the landlord will also be exempted from the payment of rates during the time that his land is unlet. I have only one further remark to make of a general character. It relates to the fact that Her Majesty's Government have thought it their duty to introduce this measure into this House of Parliament. There are those who hold the opinion that this House is not qualified to legislate upon matters relating to land, especially to land in Ireland. They believe, inasmuch as most Members of this House are connected with land solely as owners, this is not a fit Assembly to deal with a measure affecting the tenure of land with regard both to owners and tenants. This view of the subject has been taken in public on a late occasion by an illustrious statesman, whose opinion on these questions ought to be of value, and whose statements I cannot allow to go uncontradicted. A few days ago, Sir William Harcourt made the following statement with regard to legislation in the House of Lords on the subject of land in Ireland. He said— It was the legislation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, so bitterly opposed by the Irish landlords, so violently opposed by the Tory Party, so mauled and mangled by the House of Lords, which was the first attempt on the part of the British Parliament to do its duty towards the country which it had undertaken to govern. I had not the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House when the Act of 1870 was passed, but I have a clear recollection when the Act of 1881 was passed in this House; and I think I remember that the noble Lord (Lord Carlingford) who had charge of the measure during its progress in this House, and who with infinite tact, good temper, and ability, guided its fortunes through this House, bore testimony to the influence on the Bill of the discussions in the House of Lords, in direct variance with the views which have been expressed by Sir William Harcourt. My Lords, it would be presumptuous in me to enter into conflict with so eminent a statesman as Sir William Harcourt; but provided myself with a "sling and a stone," in the shape of an extract from Hansard, which I will venture to read to the House. After the Bill of 1881 had been read a third time in the House, and after many an anxious discussion had taken place between the Members of this House and the Members of "another place" on the subject of the provisions of the Bill, the noble (Lord Lord Carlingford) in this House made the following remarks:— I have only one word to say. In our opinion, this Bill, if it passes into law in the form in which it has now come from the House of Commons, will not have sacrificed any one of the essential principles which it originally contained, or fail, so far as we and Parliament are concerned, to attain substantially the objects it has in view. I am quite willing to add that, with respect to its details, in our opinion it has been distinctly improved by the collision and comparison of opinions of the majorities of the two Houses of Parliament, looking at it, no doubt, from opposite points of view. That is our conviction, which I am glad to state to the House."— (3 Hansard, [265] 10.) That is an answer to the statement of Sir William Harcourt that your Lordships are disposed to maul or mangle any measure which has for its object the settlement of the Land Question in Ireland. This Bill makes provision against a state of things which we hope further legislation before long will remove. It is, no doubt, a temporary measure, but it is temporary only in so far as it deals with matters which we believe and expect will not last for long. It is an instalment, but it must not be considered in the sense of a composition. With respect to the land in Ireland, it is, perhaps, hopeless to expect any finality; but if we are ever to reach the goal at which we are all aiming, it will be, to use the memorable words of Mr. Gladstone, by patient perseverance in well doing and by steady adherence to justice. It would be idle to deny that in passing this measure we are asking noble Lords in this House and those in whom they are deeply interested to make great and important sacrifices; but we believe they will take a larger and wider view of their own duties and responsibilities than regard to their own interests would imply, and that those interests, in the long run, will be subordinated to that which they must acknowledge to be the welfare and prosperity of the country. This measure has been drawn up with a strict regard for the rights of property; and, at the same time, with an earnest desire to meet the difficulties and remedy the defects of the laws relating to land as they at present exist. It is drawn up, as we believe, in a spirit of fairness and a spirit of justice. It is in that spirit I have endeavoured to present it to your Lordships, and I submit it with due deference but with perfect confidence to the wisdom, patriotism, and statesmanship of the House.

Bill to amend the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, and the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885; and for other purposes connected therewith—Presented (The LORD PRIVY SEAL).

EARL GRANVILLE

The noble Earl who has just sat down (Earl Cadogan) has more than once in his speech made graceful apologies to your Lordships for his incompetence to deal with what we all confess to be a very difficult subject. The noble Earl may have been induced to make this apology from the fact that there has been some criticism out of doors that a Bill affecting such great and important questions should be introduced by one who has not as yet the authority of a Cabinet Minister. I am bound to say that I do not feel inclined to join in that criticism. In the first place, I have always remarked that the noble Earl when making a statement for the Government does it with great clearness, with great sympathy excited among his Friends, and absolutely without irritation to his opponents. I quite understand that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord Ashbourne) should have felt some modesty in being the promoter of a Bill one of the principal provisions of which he condemned in such burning words not very long ago. I have no complaint to make of the account the noble Earl has given of the history of Irish land legislation. He might have gone further and have referred to the Encumbered Estates Act which was introduced with the best intentions into Ireland and failed, from its inconsistency with Irish customs. Again, it would be inconsistent for me, after my recent complaints of the same person being Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, to suggest that he should take upon himself also the duties of the Chief Secretary. What I complain of is that the noble Earl should have gone out of his way to make an attack on the evidence of the chief civil servant of Her Majesty's Government— one placed in the position he now occupies after a very distinguished man whom they thought not equal to the task. The noble Earl attacked General Buller's evidence on one point. He represented the General as having said, to the disparagement of the late Government, that all the legislation on land in Ireland had been in favour of the rich against the poor. I thought it almost impossible, because we all remember the great arguments used against the measures both of 1870 and 1881, when the argument was entirely founded on the contention that our measures were contrary to justice and political economy and injurious not to the tenant but to the landlord. In referring to the General's evidence I find that he said that until lately the legislation with regard to land in Ireland had always been in favour of the rich against the poor. This phrase, until lately, absolutely cut the ground from under the noble Lord. The noble Earl gave us an account of some of the principal points in the Report of the Commission appointed by Her Majesty's Government. The Report stated that it was impossible for a large portion of the tenants to pay even judicial rents. This was stoutly denied in the House of Commons, but it was not so stoutly denied hero. Lord Salisbury only doubted the fact, and promised a remedy of a conditional character if the case was proved. The Commissioners' Report on this point is precise, and from the evidence given before them, and from the fact that bankers had limited their assistance, and from statistics from the Registrar General, show how much the prices of produce have fallen— I believe it is 18 per cent. The noble Earl has quoted several of the salient points of the Report. Some of these might, or might not, be used as arguments for some measure of repression. But I put thes8 aside on the present occasion. Though it may be convenient to the Government to call attention to a Bill and then read it a first time, I do not think it is the most convenient course to this House, to the country, or to "another place," in regard to a Bill of this character. It may be to the promoters an advantage, because they have a perfect knowledge of the Bill, to make a statement and then adjourn without its being answered by those who are placed at a great disadvantage through having no opportunity of seeing the Bill. Another point in this Bill is the recommendation of the Commission with regard to leaseholders, and the Government adopt that recommendation with certain limitations. One of the recommendations alluded to by the noble Earl was in reference to the question of the revision of rents. The Commission strongly recommended that the term of 15 years should be limited to five years; but there is to be no revision of rents proposed by this Bill. The noble Earl quoted the speech of Lord Hartington yesterday as upsetting all the statements of fact as made by the Commission, after hearing the whole evidence and weighing and considering every word of it. I can only say that this is another instance of what Mr. Goschen says—that Lord Hartington, though not in Office, is the person who has the power. Not once, but twice, the noble Earl fortified his case with the obiter dicta of Lord Hartington. It is perfectly open now, after the speech of the noble Earl, for any Peer to enter into the debate. But I cannot help thinking that it would be imprudent to enter into a discussion of the Bill before we have had an opportunity of reading it. I would point out, however, that I think some explanation will be expected as to the lop-sided and onesided character of this measure. With regard to the leaseholders, we refrained from dealing with them; but the noble Earl had given reasons for going further. The Land Commission has a comprehensive plan, whether right or wrong, for dealing with both sides of the question, and it is the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to enable the leaseholders to come into Court. It is clear that these leaseholders are in a better position than the annual tenants, for their rents will be revised according to a much lower scale than those of the annual tenants some four or five years ago, for whom no reduction is proposed. Another Land Bill is promised, and I confidently hope that some statement will be made this evening, which will give us a notion of the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government. I should like to know why the leaseholders should be put on a much better footing than the great masses of annual tenants. Some of these points must be met and explained by the Government. I must say that Her Majesty's Government have introduced a Bill in this House with singular advantage over that which we possess, because they are perfectly certain to carry whatever they propose, whereas we are in a very different position. [The Marquess of SALISBURY dissented.] The noble Marquess shakes his head, but I rather think, on the whole, that we shall find this Bill will be passed in its present shape, or in a shape perfectly agreeable to Her Majesty's Government.

EARL COWPER

said, that, having presided over the Royal Commission to which reference had been made, he would give a few reasons for what he considered its principal recommendation. The noble Earl had referred to the trouble the Commissioners had experienced, and the number of times they had sat and the number of questions they had put. He certainly sympathized with those who had to wade through the whole of the evidence. That evidence, however, required very careful reading by those who wished to understand the matter, because, in a mas3 of evidence of that sort, it was very easy to pick out arguments for almost any conceivable course. All he could say was, that his own impression, after hearing the evidence, was that there was very great depression and very great difficulty experienced among the tenants, and particularly those who had no capital—and he was sorry to say that there was a vast number of tenants who were in that position—in paying rent in Ireland, even rents which were fair two or three years ago. The majority of the Commission, after a long and careful consideration, came to the conclusion that something really must be done to help these unfortunate tenants. Of course, they were quite aware of the difficulty, inconvenience—and some people might, perhaps, say the injustice—of departing from the arrangement that was made only six years ago. But when they considered all the arguments that were used in favour of that arrangement, which was a distinct interference with freedom of contract and with the rights of the landlord—when they considered all the reasons which induced Parliament to pass the Act of 1881, it seemed to him, at least, that every argument which was used then might be fairly used now to meet the altered state of circumstances. He could not understand anyone who was convinced by the arguments used in 1881, when the tenant was so helpless that an outside authority had to fix the rent, not feeling that if that rent turned out, by the unforeseen and continuous fall of prices, to be such as he could not pay, it would be right, however disagreeable or painful to their feelings, to step in again with some plan by which his rent would be such as he was able to pay. After turning all these things over, they thought they might depart so far from the contract that Lad been made as to make the rent now payable in the same proportion to produce, roughly speaking, as it was then. This would make the land lord share in the fall that had taken place, and not have it all thrown upon the tenant. At the same time, it would leave the landlord in such a position that if prices again became as they were before he might have the same rent as before; and if by any chance there 'was a rise of prices during a number of seasons, he might have even more rent than he had had before. In fact, he would be put in the position of receiving the same share of the proceeds of the farm that he got before. That would not be, at any rate, a very violent departure from what might justly be demanded. There might be, and there were, objections to what the Commission proposed; but he maintained that some relief ought really to be given to the tenants. He was very glad that the Government seemed to be of that opinion also. The proposals to stay evictions, and give the Judge power, if necessary, to make a reduction in the rent if he considered it too great, were certainly reliefs. These matters required to be very carefully gone into on the second reading; but, as far he could see, the plan had this fatal objection—this fatal omission—that in order to get a reduction the tenant would be obliged to force the landlord's hand and compel him to get a writ of ejectment. The tenants whom they were most anxious to help, the tenants who had done their best to meet their obligations, were in such a position that they had but few savings at their back. Yet they would have to draw upon their savings to pay. They would have no help at all, though they were the men whom they most wanted to help. He wished sincerely that something could be told their Lordships and the country as to what this purchase scheme of the Government was. The more the question of purchase was examined, the more difficult it seemed. But if it was such that it was to give any relief to the good and industrious and better sort of tenants in Ireland, the sooner they were told so the better. He thought, in honest justice, that they should have their fair share of relief. The majority of their Lordships were very anxious that the Union be- tween England and Ireland should be preserved, and he was very much against Home Rule, as he thought it would inevitably lead to a complete rupture of the Union. The greatest hope and the greatest stay against this were these industrious and well-behaved tenants of the North. If they lost them they would have a very much more difficult battle to fight. It would be a difficult one to fight anyhow, but it would be very much more difficult if they were foolish enough to lose this well-behaved and industrious class of tenants. From what he saw in Ireland, he honestly thought that if these tenants did not get assistance they would be in as bad a position as an improvident and idle and bankrupt tenant in the South, and their loyalty would be very much shaken. For these reasons, therefore, he did hope that if there was to be any purchase and any chance of relief held out to them it would be very speedily made known. As far as he could gather from the statement of the noble Earl he really thought that they would be rather left out in the cold, while bankrupt tenants in the South might, perhaps, be relieved from some of the hardships to which they were now exposed.

THE EARL OF BELMORE

said, he was glad to find that some change was to be made in the matter of evictions. There were several endowed schools in Ireland which were supported by estates scattered over the country. One of these schools—theRaphoe School—was in the County of Donegal, and the accounts of which now showed a debt of £900. The estate which supported it was in the same county. The tenants on that estate had not adopted the Plan of Campaign, but they had, with one exception, declined to pay any rent whatever, although the rental of the estate was at least 15 per cent below the Government valuation on the aggregate. During the last three years there had been three sales of the tenants' interest that the Board knew of—one at about 21 years' purchase, one at 45, and a third at 51 years' purchase. So it was evident that the tenants had a valuable interest in their farms. If this school had not been aided by drawing on the balances of other schools, it would have had to be closed in consequence of the non-payment of the rents which formed | its endowments. "With regard to leaseholders, considerable difference of opinion had prevailed, and the power to break leases, while in some cases it might be beneficial to the tenant, would, in many others operate in the contrary direction, where the tenants were holding under leases at very low rents.

THE EARL OF DUNBAVEN

said, it was impossible to criticize a measure of so complex a character, or to form a final opinion upon it, until they had seen the Bill; but so far as he had seen from his noble Friend's (Earl Cadogan) speech, it would be of considerable benefit to the country, and it would do a great deal to render more smooth and easy the relations between landlord and tenant, which, at the present time, were so strained. The main provisions of the Bill appeared to be the admission of leaseholders to the benefits of the Land Act of 1881, and the granting to the County Court Judges of certain discretionary powers which they had not hitherto possessed; and in those two main provisions of the Bill he was happy to find himself in agreement. He did the best he could in 1881 to enforce his opinion that leaseholders ought to have been admitted to the benefits of the Act of that year, and he rejoiced to find that they were now to be admitted. He did not quite clearly understand what the position of leaseholders was to be, but no doubt that would be made more clear when the Bill was presented. As to the discretion vested in the County Court Judges, he could not agree with the noble Earl opposite who presided over the Commission (Earl Cowper), that it would only apply to the case of bankrupt tenants. As he (the Earl of Dunraven) understood it, the County Court Judges would have additional powers of postponing the issue of decrees, and allowing the tenants to remain longer on their holdings. That would be an enormous benefit to the tenant, and no detriment whatever to the landlord. He was sure that owners of land would be only too glad to have any fair tribunal which would relieve them of the heavy burden of responsibility which now rested on their shoulders. They were tired of the misrepresentation and distortion to which their conduct was subjected in "another place." He could understand the justice of not levying rates on the landlord where he received no rent; but as the rates would become higher he would have to pay more out of the land that was let. So that was as broad as it was long. He was glad the Government had not shortened the term of 15 years, because he believed if they had shortened it to five the result would have been disastrous. Tenants would not have been more satisfied than they were now, and it was obvious that it would keep the country in a state of turmoil without any intermission whatever. His opinion was now, and always had been, that to attempt to fix a fair rent to the satisfaction of the parties concerned was an absolute impossibility. He thought originally it might have been better to settle the question by means of what was called a "produce rent." That was to say that a certain fixed rent should have been decided as a fair rent based on current prices, and that it should have been raised and lowered according to the changes of prices on a regular scale; but for that to have been of any use, it would have been necessary to revise the rent not every five years or every 10 years, but yearly; and that would have required great machinery, and would have been very difficult to carry out. A method such as that, though partially satisfactory, would not have been entirely satisfactory, because other factors beside the price of produce had to be considered. There was the quantity and quality of produce and the price of labour to be calculated. Tenants would not be satisfied to have rents raised if prices were high because of a scanty yield. It was absolutely impossible to decide what was fair rent; and that, he believed, was the opinion on all sides. He was rejoiced to hear the noble Earl say that Her Majesty's Government intended, in a short time, to bring in a larger measure dealing with the whole question of land by purchase. He was satisfied that in the transfer of land to the occupier, in substitution of the absurd system of dual ownership invented by Mr. Gladstone and his Party, lay the only chance of salvation for Ireland. He believed such a scheme could be carried out without calling upon Imperial aid or Imperial money—at any rate to any large extent. The late Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) had declared that such was the ease; but he added that it would be impossible, unless a Parliament was set up in Dublin. That was the opinion of the late Prime Minister, the Leader of a large section of the Liberal Party, that a scheme could be worked out and ful- filled to buy out the rights of landlords ill Ireland without calling upon British credit or British money; "but this could be accomplished only if his former scheme was carried out. His (Lord Dunraven's) belief was that it could be carried out without the setting out a Parliament in Dublin. He sincerely hoped Her Majesty's Government would now get both time and opportunity to bring in a large and comprehensive measure dealing with that matter. He did not know that it was material to discuss the opinion of Sir Redvers Buller as to whether the law in Ireland was in favour of the rich or the poor; but he would remind the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) that General Buller was comparing the condition of the country at a time when there was practically no law with its condition "but a short time ago," when, in his opinion, "what law there was was really on the side of the rich." Mr. Gladstone, speaking in 1881, declared the law in Ireland was much more in favour of the tenant than the law in England. That obviously related to the Land Act of 1870. General Buller could not possibly have referred to a state of things prior to 1870—that is, 16 years ago—when lie alluded to the law being in favour of the rich "a short time ago." He was certainly referring to the same laws which Mr. Gladstone had declared to be so favourable to the tenants—that is, to the poor. He believed this measure would be a salutary one, and of great service; and he believed that noble Lords opposite on the Front Bench would be obliged to admit that it did not fairly come within the category of agrarian laws of the 19th century, prominent among which were the Land Acts of 1881 and 1870, which were described the other day by Mr. John Morley as laws which had caused more woe to the people of Ireland than all the penal laws of the 18th century.

Bill read 1a (No. 58.)

EARL CADOGAN

said, he proposed to take the second reading of the Bill on Thursday, the 21st of April.