§ (1.) The Land Law Acts, except Section seven of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881 (which amends the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, in respect of compensation' for improvements), shall not apply to the following tenancies:—
- (a.) To a tenancy in any holding which is not substantially either agricultural or pastoral in its character, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral, or the main object of the letting of which was for a residence:
- (b.) To a tenancy in any holding which substantially consists of—
- (i) land being or forming part of a home farm; or
- (ii) land which when first demised was demesne, and which the provisions of the contract of tenancy, or the circumstances of the case, show was intended to be preserved as demesne or resumed as demesne by the landlord; or
- (iii) land incorporated in a demesne by the tenant, and forming part of a demesne at the time the application to fix a fair rent is made:
- (c.) To a tenancy in a holding (other than a holding let to be used wholly or mainly for a dairy farm) which is let to be used wholly or mainly for the purpose of pasture—
- (i) if it is of the rateable value of upwards of one hundred pounds; or
- (ii) if the tenant does not actually reside on the holding, or where the holding adjoins or is ordinarily used with another holding, then on the latter holding;
§ (2) Where a distinct and substantive part of the property hold under one demise is demesne land, or is not agricultural or pastoral in its character, or is an incorporeal hereditament, and the Court consider that that part is not the substantial part of such property, the Court may, if they are of opinion that, apart from the fixing of a fair rent, the separation of the property into two parts will not diminish the value of the landlord's interest therein, direct that that part shall thenceforth be, or, if it is an incorporeal hereditament, be treated as, a separate holding, and shall unless the tenancy has expired, be held at such rent during the con- 1602 tinuance of the tenancy as the Court may determine to be the proper proportion of the rent reserved by the demise, and the Court may fix a fair rent for the remainder of the property held under the demise, and the said Acts shall apply to that remainder as if it were a separate holding.
§ (3.) Where a holding is held by joint tenants or tenants in common, and such tenants have worked and occupied separate portions thereof, and the division of the holding was made prior to the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, the Court may if it think just, on the application of any joint tenant or tenant in common, fix a fair rent upon the portion of the holding so separately occupied.
§ (4.) Nothing in this section shall extend to any holding in respect of which a judicial rent has been fixed before the commencement of this Act.
§
LORD MACNAGHTEN moved to leave out Paragraph (a) Sub-section (1)—
To a tenancy in any holding which is not substantially either agricultural or pastoral in its character, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral, or the main object of the letting of which was for a residence.
He wished to know what was the difference between land which was agricultural and land which was "substantially" agricultural" in its character. Speaking as a lawyer, he could not see the slightest difference between the two. Lord Justice Fitzgibbon had held that if a holding was homogeneous there was no difference between its being agricultural or substantially agricultural, but if it was not homogeneous—as, for instance, where some tithes were included in the letting—there was some difference. He confessed he had some difficulty in following that argument, but that point was provided for in the Bill by the next section. He thought it was extremely dangerous to make this difference.
§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the Land Acts at present applied, speaking generally, only to what might be described as ordinary farms, but he believed there had been holdings of which an insignificant part was not of the description of an ordinary farm, and the tenant of such a holding had found himself excluded from the advantages of the Land Act. The object of the word "substantial" was to provide that where there was a farm of which all but an insignificant portion was an ordinary farm, the tenant should not be denied the advantage of a fair rent. 1603 That seemed to him to be a reasonable proposal, and one which was in accordance with the practice of the Courts. The noble and learned Lord then asked what difference there was between that case and the case dealt with in another sub-section.
§ LORD MACNAGHTENsaid that what he meant was that Lord Justice Fitzgibbon had certain views in cases where the holding was not what he called homogeneous, and that the case which he thought should be provided for was provided for in the next sub-section. He did not think it wise to enact the word "substantial."
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDthought the word "substantial" was a useful and convenient word. They had acted very harshly in several cases, the names of which he did not recollect for the moment, but which were very familiar, and it was, therefore, most important that the word "substantial" should be retained in the clause. On the whole, he thought that it would be very much wiser in the circumstances to retain the word in the clause, it having been inserted for the purpose of meeting what was generally admitted to be a real grievance.
§ LORD MACNAGHTENsaid that after what had fallen from the noble Marquess, he would not press his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
LORD MACNAGHTEN moved, after Paragraph (ii), Sub-section (1), to insert the following new paragraph—
(iii) land which when first demised was demesne and which was originally let by a limited owner or.
§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid that no doubt both the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government desired the same thing, namely, to protect the demesne lands, although the language they used was different. The only difference between their proposals was this. The Government said that the. Act should not apply to demesne land when the circumstances showed that the landlord in letting the land did not intend to deprive it for all time of its character as demesne land. The noble and learned Lord wished to put the onus the 1604 other way, and to say that where land was proved to have been once demesne land, it could not be undemesned unless the contract or the circumstances showed that it was intended to deprive the land for all time of its demesne character. He was advised that the clause as it stood did nothing more than declare what was the existing law.
§ LORD MACNAGHTENsaid that in principle there was no difference between himself and the noble Marquess—the only question between them was upon whom the onus of proof was to fall. As the law now stood he should have thought that it was only fair that the onus should have fallen upon the tenant. If, however, the noble Marquess declined to accept his Amendment, he was willing to withdraw it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD MACNAGHTENsaid that there was another point on which he should be glad to have the noble Marquess's opinion, and that was in the case of demesne land having been let by a limited owner. He did not think that a limited owner ought to be allowed to let the demesne land to the detriment of the remainderman.
§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid that the point could be more conveniently raised on Sub-section (2) of Clause 9.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD CLONCURRY moved, in Subparagraph (i), Paragraph (c), Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "one hundred" and to insert instead thereof the word "fifty." The Bill, as it stood, proposed that fair rents should be fixed in the case of pasture farms of the annual value of £100 instead of £50, as the law now stood. The Government had stated that the change in agricultural values had rendered it necessary to make the proposed change in the existing law. They had heard a great deal about the reduction of rents, but they had not yet heard of rents being raised from £50 to £100 a year. The Government proposed, by a side wind, to revolutionise all the contracts relating to farms of the annual value of between £50 and £100. The Bill, as it stood, proposed to repeal 1605 the provisions of the Act of 1881, which expressly declared that only farms of an annual value below £50 should be affected by this kind of legislation. The lower limit was fixed upon by Mr. Gladstone and his Government when the Act of 1881 was being passed. Mr. Gladstone, on the occasion to which he referred, had distinctly declared that he had no desire to make a holocaust of freedom of contract in Ireland, and drew the limit at £50 annual value. This question was not exclusively an Irish one, and neither was it an agricultural one, because it concerned cattle dealers in both countries equally. There was no reason why officials in Dublin should have obliged the Chief Secretary to trample out this last remnant of free contract. He asked the noble Marquess not to make this unnecessary change in the law. If the noble Marquess found himself unable to support the Amendment, he appealed to noble Lords from all parts of the United Kingdom to support it.
§ * THE EARL OF ERNEsaid the action of the Government in raising the limit in the ease of pasture farms from £50 to £100 was indefensible. The Act of 1881 was based upon the assumption that the majority of tenants in Ireland were so poor and ignorant, and incapable of taking care of themselves, that they had to be protected from the rapacity of some of the landlords. There was no use in inquiring at that time of day how far that assumption was correct. But the greater part of his property was held by those tenants, and they were quite as shrewd and as capable of taking care of themselves as any he knew of. It was an extraordinary thing that a Conservative Government should upset the settlement of 1881, and take away another slice of the landlords' property. The noble Marquess who moved the Second Reading of the Bill stated, as a reason for the inclusion within the scope of the Land Act of pasture tenants between £50 and £100, that the difference between them and the tenants already under the Act was not sufficiently marked to justify their exclusion. But in the House of Commons, Mr. Gerald Balfour, speaking on a similar Amendment to this, stated as the reason that, in consequence of the change in the condition of agriculture, a large number of farms had 1606 reverted from tillage to pasture. That was quite true; but that process had been going on for a period long anterior to 1881. It began in 1848, when, owing to the decrease in the population, the decline in the price of corn, and the increase in the value of stock, hundreds of acres of tillage had been turned into grass. But the same condition of things that existed in 1881 existed now, and there was no justification for departing from the settlement of 1881.
§ LORD MACNAGHTENsupported the Amendment on the ground that it was not desirable to make any alterations in the Act of 1881 unless there was reason for it. He thought the alteration which the Government had made was based on a misapprehension. The Morley Committee said that "tillage being now less profitable under the changed conditions of agriculture it was natural "—he could not comprehend what "natural" meant there—"and conformable with the policy of that Act"—he also failed to grasp the meaning of that phrase—"that the limit of exclusion of pasture holdings should be raised." It was said by one Member of the Committee that the limit existing in the case of pasture farms had operated with harshness, and would operate with increasing harshness in the future. But it should be remembered that a farm, in order to be within the exclusion of the Land Act, must be let to be used for pasture. If a farmer took a thousand acres and turned it into pasture, the power of fixing a fair rent on it would be unaltered. In fact, it was utterly impossible now to bring any fresh land within the excluding section. Nor could it be said that there was any grasping desire on the part of the landlords to exact large rents from pasture farmers. One of the official witnesses before the Morley Committee said he did not find that pasture land was more highly rented in proportion to value than tillage land; and also that the fall in the value of agricultural produce since 1879 did not affect pasture land so much as tillage land, if, indeed, it affected pasture land at all. Only one witness spoke in favour of raising the limit in the case of pasture farms. He was a very eminent person, but he did not seem to be confident of his own opinion. When asked whether he had any suggestion to make on the 1607 subject, he said "he should be disposed" to make the limit £100 instead of £50. An opinion expressed so modestly was not worth anything.
* LORD CLONBROCKsaid he was well acquainted with the class of tenants affected by the Amendment. They had but little in common with agricultural tenants, they belonged, as a rule more to the class of cattle dealers, and there was no reason why the principle of free contracts should be departed from in their case. They were expressly excluded from the Act of 1881 as being perfectly able to make their own bargains, and they were not likely to have since deteriorated in that respect. The inclusion of a farm within the Land Act not only resulted in a reduction of rent in most cases, but it deprived the landlord of a considerable amount of property in other ways. The landlord's right of re-entry was taken away by giving the tenant fixity of tenure, and the fixing of the tenant-right materially curtailed the value of a farm. The only reason which he had heard for the transfer of this property from the landlord to this class of tenant was that they were dissatisfied, and wanted to be placed in the same position as those under £50, but really the principle that a man was only to hold property until someone else wanted it, was a somewhat novel one, even as applied to Ireland, and he thought would hardly meet with approval in their Lordships' House. But with regard to the inclusion of this or any other class of tenant in the provisions of the Land Act, and the consequent loss to the landlords, he would like to say to this House what he knew the landowners in the west of Ireland, and he believed in all parts of Ireland, would wish to say to both Houses of Parliament. You did us a grievous wrong in 1881. We are far from saying that you did it intentionally. It was the belief of the framers of the Act of that year, and no doubt adopted by you, that for any loss the landlord would sustain he would be fully indemnified by the enhanced security of his income, and that the value of his property would rise to over 20 years' purchase. The result has been widely different. It has fallen from over 20 years' purchase of the former rent to between 15 and 18 of the reduced rent. You did us a further injustice in 1608 1887, and with less excuse, as you had some experience to guide you, but you then believed in finality. Now you know that there is no finality in this Measure. You did not know what you were doing in 1881, you could not know, it was an experiment. You do know what you are doing in 1896, therefore whatever you do, you are doing with your eyes open. He hoped the Committee would fully consider this, and would accept the Amendment.
§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid it was with regret he found himself resisting the earnest and temperate appeal of the noble Lord. He would state in the fewest possible words why it was the Government thought it necessary to adhere to their proposal as it stood in the Bill. They were well aware of the inconvenience of money limits. A division of one class from another by a money limit must obviously by an arbitrary division, and must lead to a sense of grievance amongst those persons who found themselves excluded. The Government believed that the limit, as it now existed, was drawn in the wrong place, and that if they maintained it they would leave a sense of disappointment and discontent amongst the farmers of a particular class who were at present denied the advantages of a fair rent, and who were really not distinguishable from their neighbours to whom these advantages were not denied. Much had been said of the intention of the framers of the Act of 1881. Undoubtedly the intention was to exclude grazing farmers, not of the kind that they proposed to admit under the clause, but men such as those who were referred to by the noble Earl who moved the Amendment—sales masters, butchers, and people of that kind. Now they believed there were grazing farmers between the £50 and £100 limit who were farmers pure and simple, and between whom and the sales masters and graziers there was really little or nothing in common. One noble Lord indicated that in his opinion the test they ought to apply was the ability of the tenant to take care of himself, and that as the graziers between £50 and £100 were able to take care of themselves there was no cause for admitting them to the benefit of the Act. But that test was not the test which was adopted under the existing law. In the 1609 case of dairy farms the limit was £250. In the case of tillage farms there was no limit at all. A man might be paying £1,000 a year rent and surely capable of taking care of himself, but he was admitted to the benefit of the Act. One word with regard to the suggestion that the Amendment would have the effect of admitting persons of the cattle dealing class, who as the noble Lord said, hired a few fields, but were not farmers of the ordinary type at all. Surely men of that class would be excluded by the wording of the clause, because the Government expressly stipulated that if the tenant did not reside on his holding he was to be, whatever his valuation, excluded from the benefits of the Act. Therefore that particular apprehension was not entitled to much weight. The Government had considered the matter carefully, and they had come to the conclusion that it was their duty to admit farmers of the particular class to which this clause applied.
* VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTwished to say a word on this important question of grazing holdings. There were not only grazing holdings of fine grass, but large mountain grazings to include which in the Act would be injurious. He had taken legal opinion upon this subject and if their Lordships would allow him he would read one or two passages from it.
There is no reason for extending the limit imposed upon the tenants of grazing farms with regard to the fixing of fair rents. The existing limit of farms having an annual value of £50 was fixed with the object of enabling all the poorer class of tenants, no matter what the nature of their holdings might he, to have a fair rent fixed. It was supposed that small tenants might he unable to protect themselves in making contracts with their landlords; but that this vas not the case with tenants holding larger farms, and who were possessed of more capital.The tenant of a large grazing farm is not in the ordinary sense an agriculturist; he is rather a dealer in cattle, and a large number of men who require grazing farms take them only by the season. This is not the case with tillage farms. He supposed it was not intended to include tenants who took the grass for six months in the summer. He was sure that was not the intention of the Act of 1881. And Mr. Gladstone 1610 specially excepted those tenants. Besides, all these grazing farms were taken by agreement; there was no question of fair rent about them, the rent was agreed upon.The clause in the present Bill would admit tenants of holding of the annual value of £100 who are perfectly able to protect themselves with regard to the rents they pay, and can always get land by the season for the market value if too high a rent were demanded for a permanent letting. Once the limit of £50 is overstepped there is no reason to stop at that limit, and no argument will be good against a limit of £150 that would not have been equally good against the limit of £100. No reason has been given in the Debates on the present Bill in the House of Commons for widening the limit, and none has ever been given elsewhere. No evidence was given in support of the change before Mr. Morley's Committee except that of Mr. Justice Bewley, who gave no reason for his opinion. Under the second part of the clause a tenant might hold under the same or different landlords three different grazing holdings, each of them under £100 a year (say £90 a year), and he could come into Court with each of them although he only resided upon one, because the adjoining holding's upon which he resided would be holding's to which the Acts apply; or if the holding in question was under one landlord and the tenant resided upon an adjoining grazing farm of a value of £300 or £400 a year held under another landlord, he could have a fair rent fixed on the smaller holding, thus defeating altogether the object of the original limit, which was to protect tenants who required protection. Where landlords, upon the faith of the Act of 1881, let grazing lands valued at upwards of £50 subsequent to that Act, believing that they were letting under a system of free contract, this Bill will confer on the tenants all the rights enjoyed by present tenants under that Act.He appealed to the Government to give way under this clause. The Irish landlords had been fighting for them and spending money and everything else in supporting the Government, and now they were treated in this way. The only thing they had in free contracts were these grazing holdings and now it was proposed to take them away.
* LORD INCHIQUINwished to endorse what had been said about these grazing holdings. There were a great many in the county of Clare which he owned himself. There could be no grievance (as far as his knowledge went, which extended over the county and adjoining counties), on the part of any individual who occupied one of these holdings. It was clear that they were let for pasturage only and these were the terms on which they were let. As Lord 1611 Macnaghten pointed out, the reasons attempted to be raised before the Morley Commission were perfectly wrong. No holding capable of being tilled and let for tillage as well as pasture would come under the Act. It was old pasture lettings their Lordships were talking of, and he protested against what was proposed to be done by the Government unless they did it with their eyes open. In his opinion it was simply taking so much out of the landlord's hands and putting it in the hands of someone else. If the Government were prepared to hold to this let them understand what they were doing. They were giving to the tenants of these holdings power to sub-let them, which they had no difficulty in doing to any grazier or any one else, and get the extreme rent the holding would fetch and put it in their pockets. At present the landlord had that power and there was no reason why he should be prevented from continuing to exercise it. Lord Lansdowne had reminded them that large agricultural tenants under the Act of 1881 could go into Court and get these rents fixed. In the year 1881 he moved a clause to exclude tenants over £50, and much to his regret, Lord Lansdowne who was a large owner of land in Ireland opposed it, also the late Lord Waterford on the ground that it would be much better not to have a perpetual interference with property. He was sorry to say he withdrew his Amendment on that occasion, although he was afterwards told that if he had pressed it to a Division many noble Lords would have supported him, and thus a provision which had done gross injury would never have become law. It seemed to him, if this proposal of the Government were allowed to pass, a certain amount of property would be taken from the landlords, who were the owners of it.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYintended to support the Amendment, because he had heard no reason given by the Government as to why a new class of tenants should be admitted to the advantages of the Land Act of 1881. He understood the Bill was to elucidate and make intelligible the Act of 1881, and not to confer benefits on people who were excluded from that Act by taking away property from those who could ill 1612 afford to lose it. ["Hear, hear!"] The clause to which the Amendment was directed proposed to admit to the advantages of the fair-rent Courts a number of men who were declared by the Act of 1881 to have no right to enter these Courts, because there was no necessity that they should do so. The only excuse the noble Marquess had put forward for this clause was that there was a money limit, which caused annoyance to those who were excluded. Rut whom should they be annoyed with? With Mr. Gladstone and his Government, that passed the Act of 1881. Mr. Gladstone declared that he purposely excluded from the advantages of the Act of 1881 the tenants who were rated at over £50 and under £100, because they were well able to take care of themselves, and perfectly independent of anything like coercion on the part of their landlords. ["Hear, hear!"] Again, the late Mr. Parnell stated in the House of Commons that, in his opinion, tenants of all kinds whose holdings were rated at this amount of £50 had got all that they were fairly entitled to, and that the land question only survived in the case of the smaller tenants. No answer had been given to the question, why it was proposed to admit to the benefits of the Act of 1896 the people who were deprived of the benefits of the Act of 1881? There were many graziers in the rich parts of Ireland who did not make their living merely in this way. They had other interests and callings, and he would ask their Lordships to remember that the competition rents of the graziers it was now proposed to admit to the benefits of this Bill far exceeded the judicial rents of their holdings. ["Hear, hear!"] He considered this was a question of vital importance, which his noble Friend was justified in asking their Lordships to divide upon, because the Government were going away from what they had been given to understand was their programme and policy with regard to this Measure. [Cheers.] That programme was to elucidate and make intelligent the Act of 1881, and not add to it any further confiscation of the rights of the landlords. [Cheers.] He maintained that by admitting to the benefits of this Bill a fresh body of people, on whom, moreover, there was no need to confer 1613 those benefits, the Government were infringing the rights of the Act of 1881. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ LORD MACNAGHTENcontended that the argument he had presented to their Lordships had not been answered. He had pointed out that the recommendation of Mr. Morley's Committee was founded on a blunder, and it was perfectly clear that, if the whole tillage land in Ireland was turned into pasture, the number of persons included in the exemption clause would not be in the slightest degree increased. The noble Marquess based his argument simply on the belief of himself and those associated with him in the Cabinet. But why should they act on their belief? Nobody could have a higher respect for their belief than he; but there were plenty of people who believed exactly the opposite. ["Hear, hear!"] Why was the House asked to act on the belief of the noble Marquess? Surely, when they were going to make a serious inroad on the Act of 1881, there would not have been the slightest difficulty in obtaining a return, showing who the people were who lay between the limits of £50 and £100. Let them know how many there were and in what counties. But they were now asked—and he had never heard of such a thing before—to act in the dark on the belief of the noble Marquess and his colleagues. [Cheers.]
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENwas very glad the Government were not going to accept the Amendment. He did not think the clause would have the consequences which some noble Lords seemed to anticipate; or that under it grazing tenants, having a fair rent fixed, would be empowered and entitled to sub-let their holdings. Neither did he think that the clause would apply to the cases which had been mentioned, of men taking pasturage, say for six months. It might be perfectly true that the intention of the framers of the Act of 1881 was to protect tenants who were incapable of protecting themselves, but that Act, taken with subsequent Acts, had long ago departed from any idea of that kind. But if that was the real intention he should have thought the Act of 1881 would have contained a clause to the effect that it was only to apply to imbeciles or persons in such abject poverty that they 1614 were absolutely incapable of taking care of themselves. But whatever the intention was it was perfectly certain that a class of men were admitted to the benefits of the Act who were perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. His point was that there was a class of men in Ireland who he did not think had been rightly described as mere cattle dealers. There was a class of men, large graziers, and he could not see any sense, logic, rhyme or reason for allowing them to be excluded from an Act which applied without limit to agricultural farms and which also applied to cases of leaseholders and so on. He thought it would be very unwise from the point of view of the landlords' interest to keep out of the benefits of the Bill a class of men who were well to do, who were disposed for order and good government, and he sincerely hoped that Amendment would not be carried.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEobserved that there was one great hardship which would be inflicted by extending this limit to cases of £100 a year to graziers. After the famine landlords came into possession of land not very often by ejectment, but by desertion. He knew many instances where they had spent large sums of money in cultivating, draining and improving the land. They had made bad land into excellent land, and if now, the tenant might come in and break it up, or do whatever he liked with it, it was the grossest injustice that ever was perpetrated. At this moment he knew friends of his who were still improving and laying out money, but they had ceased, naturally, altogether to lay out money, and to stop improvement altogether in view of this Bill. There was another matter. In old times long leases were given. He knew from his experience, that when these leases fell in the lands were in a ruinous state. Then there was another thing, and that was, that pasture was more desirable than tillage in their country, because, when the climate was so wet, they never could tell what time they could put in their crops or what time they could get them out. He knew that meadow lying out as late as November was very little injured, while the cultivation of arable land ruined those who had it.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE)said the noble Marquess who spoke just before upon this subject seemed to be under the impression that he and his Friends had been taken by surprise in finding that the present Bill contained any such provision as this. He was quite sure that his noble Friend was not one of those whose political conduct would have been influenced by any such consideration, but they had heard in the course of that Debate some observations from some noble Lords, chiefly from Ireland, complaining of the conduct of the Government towards them, considering all that had been done for the Government by them and their friends in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought it was well to remember that, although the particular provisions of the Bill could not be known before it was introduced, ample notice was given, even before the General Election took place, of the general lines upon which the Government intended to legislate in regard to Irish land, and that no noble Lord or any of their friends could have acted throughout the Election in ignorance of the fact that it was the intention of the Government to propose to legislate again upon Irish land, and substantially upon the lines of this Bill. [Cries of "No!"] The pledges which were given on the subject were chiefly contained in a speech made by the Chief Secretary, he thought at Leeds, which was frequently quoted in Ireland, and amongst those pledges which his right hon. Friend gave was one that the Government would carefully reconsider the exclusions from the Land Act, with the view of securing greater uniformity in dealing with agricultural and pastoral holdings, which were substantially identical in character. After a speech of that kind he did not think anybody could have been taken by surprise at the proposals contained in this Bill. He quite agreed it was a subject which it was extremely difficult to argue about, because all questions about the exact position of a hard-and-fast line must be rather matters of opinion than matters which were capable of absolute demonstration. It was always very easy, as had been pointed out, to show the absurdity or unreasonableness of including a holding which was rated at £49 1616 within a set of provisions, while a holding rated at £51 was excluded from them. But the object of the Act of 1881 in drawing this line was perfectly clear, although there might be great differences of opinion as to how far it was sufficient or insufficient in accomplishing that object. The object of that Act was undoubtedly to include within the limits of the Act holdings which, though they might be pasture holdings, were substantially farming holdings, upon which the tenant made his living by the occupation of farming. At the same time the object of the Act was to exclude the great grazing farms upon which the tenant did not live, but which were held by graziers and dealers, and were not dependent in any sense upon agricultural industry. It was only experience which could show whether the limit fixed by the Act of 1881 was sufficient or insufficient to accomplish the objects which were perfectly understood to have been the objects of the Act. Lord Inchiquin said he was very well acquainted with a great many holdings of this character; but was the noble Lord prepared to say that he was not acquainted with the cases of tenant-farmers who held grazing tenancies, and who made their living by farming as completely as the man who owned an agricultural tenancy? Was he prepared to say, intimately acquainted as he was with these tenancies, that the whole of the men between £50 and £100 rating who occupied these tenancies belonged to the class of graziers or dealers, and not to the class of tenant-farmers? The noble Lord also anticipated that this legislation would be followed by the sub-letting of these holdings—["Hear, hear!"]—that the present holder would sub-let his tenancy and would obtain a rack-rent from it while he put the difference in his pocket. The noble Lord must be perfectly aware that every tenant who came under the Act, if he availed himself of the Act, precluded himself from sub-letting, and that, if he sub-let, he immediately lost all the benefits of the Act. His own opinion, or the opinion of any one of them perhaps, was of very little value as to whether the line was rightly drawn at the limit of £50 or would be rightly extended to £100, or whether either of those lines most faithfully carried out what 1617 was the undoubted intention of the Act of 1881. That was a subject upon which each of them, he imagined, must be guided by the individual opinion he could form, and by the authority on which they placed reliance. But, although neither his opinion, nor, perhaps, the opinions of his colleagues on such a point as that could be conclusive, or, perhaps, could not be weighed in authority, in comparison with those of the noble Lords who had already spoken, he thought he could indicate one or two reasons, founded upon policy, why it would be unwise to reject, as he was afraid their Lordships were prepared to reject, this proposal. Most of those who were opposed to some of the provisions of the Bill desired—at least so they were informed on the Second Beading, though sometimes during the course of these discussions he had begun a little to doubt it—that the Bill should, with certain alterations, pass. If they desired that this Bill should pass, they also desired, he imagined, that it should give some satisfaction in Ireland, and that it should be, if not a final settlement—which was perhaps too much to hope—at any rate a settlement of the question for some short period of time. It appeared to him that if they rejected this proposal they did a great deal to put an end to any prospect of the Bill giving either satisfaction in Ireland or being a settlement of the question for any length of time at all. This was an alteration of the law, their Lordships must remember, which had not been forced upon the Government in the other House. It was the proposal of the Government itself. From the moment that this Bill was introduced every tenant of a grazing holding between the limits of £50 and £100 had known that it was proposed to extend to him the advantages which were already enjoyed by his neighbours. Many of them had been looking forward with feelings of hope to the relief which they expected to obtain under this provision. To these men, whether they were many or few, the rejection of this clause would come as a deep and bitter disappointment, and would be considered—he would not say justly considered—by them as a denial of that measure of justice which had been offered to them and which had been 1618 contended for on their behalf, not only by their own representatives, but by the Unionist Government, who, as their Lordships must remember, had been supported by a very large majority in the Unionist House of Commons. The withdrawal of this concession, which the Government, under no compulsion, offered to these tenants, could not but produce a feeling of very keen and bitter disappointment on the part of a considerable number of men scattered over many counties and districts in Ireland—men who naturally possessed some considerable influence among their fellow-tenants, and who would be naturally disposed either to continue or to revive an agitation in favour of another amendment of the Land Laws. In his opinion they might far more safely deprive the tenants who were already under the Land Acts of some additional advantages which the Bill proposed to confer upon them than leave outside the operation of the Bill altogether the class which, whether they might be large or small, had not unreasonably felt something amounting to security that they would now be included within its benefits. He did not imagine there was very much probability of the Government being able to maintain this provision in the Bill. Personally, he was disposed to take the sense of the Committee, although he was afraid that, in the present state of the Committee, the division would hardly give a correct representation of the opinion of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERBYsaid the noble Duke seemed to imply that they who owned property in Ireland were fully aware of the class of Bill which was to be submitted to their Lordships' House. With all due deference to the noble Duke, he emphatically denied that statement. ["Hear hear!"] The one sentence in the speech of the Chief Secretary at Leeds which made the most impression on his mind was that in which he declared that it was the intention of the Government to kill Home Rule by kindnes. With that sentiment he entirely concurred, and he believed there was a way of billing Home Rule by kindness, and that was by developing the interests of the country. He considered that killing 1619 Home Rule by kindness would be giving the agricultural classes technical education in those branches of education which they required. He considered that killing Home Rule by kindness would be by enabling the occupiers to become the owners of their holdings on terms agreeable to themselves and their landlords, and with no appreciable risk to the State. He never for one moment understood that killing Home Rule by kindness was to introduce a Measure adding to the discomforts imposed on landlords by the Bill of 1881. The noble Duke trusted the Amendment would be passed because he believed it would be the means of giving satisfaction to everybody in Ireland. The Bill gave satisfaction to no one in Ireland. On the Second Reading he told the noble Marquess that his own followers in the House of Commons disliked the Bill, he quoted the remark of Mr. William O'Brien that it was the worst Land Bill ever introduced, and he also pointed out that both Mr. Dillon and Mr. Davitt renounced the Bill. This was the first time he and his Friends from Ireland had as a body voted against their Party, and strong indeed must be their feelings when they did so. If the Government had killed Home Rule by kindness by bringing forward a Land Bill which was necessary—a Bill of a fair and moderate character—they would have received his and his friends' unanimous support—[cheers]—and they would have received the support of a larger body than themselves, namely, the landowners in Ireland, who were regarding the Bill as a question of life and death. What had the last Division shown the Government? It had shown them that many of their own followers had deserted them, and that others who had not deserted them were abstaining from voting. Could there be a greater condemnation of a Conservative Government than to be condemned by the Conservative Party in the House of Lords? He was sure the Prime Minister would believe they had not deserted him in the Lobby for, in their opinion, any frivolous or slight reason, but because they honestly and truly believed that the Bill would not only give satisfaction to no one, but would bring absolute ruin to a vast number of landowners of Ireland. He did not know anyone 1620 who ought to more sympathise with the Irish landlords on the present occasion than the noble Duke. The noble Duke and his followers had felt the pangs of leaving their Party. They left their Party on the grounds of personal honour and the good of their country, and they were applauded and ever would be. He, therefore, asked the noble Duke to give him and his friends the credit that in voting against; the noble Marquess they did so for the sake of conviction and not of Party. The Conservative principle had ever been to conserve, and he regretted to find that now "conserve" was altered to "confiscation." He said he and his noble Friends had been born and bred Members of the Conservative Party, and it was because of that that they found themselves in the Lobby opposed to the noble Marquess. He had an ancestor of whom he was proud, not only on account of the manner in which he discharged his duty as Foreign Minister, but also because he was responsible, more or less, for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland. He asked the noble Marquess what would be the action of that man now if he were alive? Would he support the noble Marquess in a policy that the noble Marquess himself had denounced, that his own Party in the House of Commons denounced when a Measure of a similar character was introduced, a Measure which they regarded as absolutely revolutionary? The noble Marquess knew that that ancestor would never have supported such principles, and neither could he.
§ LORD EMLY, who addressed the House for the first time, claimed to represent, to a certain extent, the views of the Irish Catholic Liberal Unionists. He also claimed to represent, to a certain extent, the views of that other and larger body of men who might be Unionists to-morrow if only the Government would be true to their pledge that they would ever regard the maintenance of the Union between England and Ireland as their first consideration. What body of men had a better right to express their views on an Irish Land Bill introduced by a Unionist Government than the Catholic Unionists of Ireland? ["Hear, hear!"] They were a small body of men—he was afraid that Liberals and Tories were alike responsible 1621 for that—but, even were he the solitary representative in their Lordships' House of that body, he would not hesitate to tell them that if the Irish question, which was mainly the Irish land question, was to be solved on Unionist lines that solution must finally be achieved by Unionists. The Unionist Government proclaimed from the housetops that they were neither a Conservative Party nor yet a landlord party. Were they keeping their pledges? The noble Marquess who had just spoken imagined, and a certain section of the Irish landlords imagined, that this was a Conservative Government. It was nothing of the sort. They, Liberals, left the Leadership of a very cherished Leader because they would not consent to sacrifice the Union between England and Ireland. Certain Irish Catholics made even still greater sacrifices. Severing themselves from their co-religionists, they stood shoulder to shoulder with that party of ascendency in Ireland with whom they had not one political idea in common. As a result of their sacrifices were they to be told that every Land Bill or other Bill introduced by a Unionist Government would only be looked at through Conservative spectacles? If so, they must give up the hope of ever making Ireland a Unionist country. It rested with the Unionist Government. The people of Ireland had up to the present given them more or less a free hand. The noble Lord said that no Party in Ireland was satisfied with the Bill. The Times, which was signally misinformed always on Irish topics, said that the representatives of the Irish tenant farmers were not satisfied with the Bill. The Irish farmers were the shrewdest of men and they were looking most eagerly for the passing of the Bill through the House. Of course the representatives of the Irish tenant farmers knew very well that should the Bill pass that House as it was introduced in another place, it would cut the ground from under their feet as it was never cut before. They had been told to expect no good from a Unionist Government, and on these grounds he entreated them not to throw away that opportunity. He should oppose the Amendment.
§ LORD CASTLETOWNsaid it was with diffidence he rose to answer the few remarks made by the noble Duke. He 1622 said that the object of the Act of 1881 was to include pasture holdings where the farmer lived, and only excluded big farmers where the tenants could not live. He had the honour of being a Member of the House of Commons in 1881, and he had a very distinct remembrance of all that occurred, and he had refreshed his memory by reading up the Debates, and he found there was very little reference made to the clause they were now dealing with. The Bill of 1881 distinctly excluded farmers with £50, and speaking with a clear recollection of the speeches made from the Ministerial Bench the object was to protect an ignorant and needy farmer who was unable to make a contract; but the man who was now to be admitted was quite able to make a contract. Everyone in Ireland who had over £100 would feel very much hurt. If they agreed to this they would go on to £150 to £200, to £250 to £400, and the result would be that every single tenant would be admitted to the benefit of the Land Act of 1881. Were they going to stand on the basis of the Act of 1881, or remedy the difficulties which had crept in since. Were they going further? If they were going further let them say so. If they were merely remedying the defects of the Act of 1881, he held that the contention of the noble Duke was not logical. Mr. Gladstone had said at the time, "I am very much opposed to the consideration of holdings," but since then holdings had been consolidated and had become pasture holdings, and those were the holdings they were going to admit. They were, going to put into the Act of 1896 the very holdings which they said in 1881 ought not to be admitted. He appealed to his noble and loyal Friend who had opposed this in 1881 to support the Amendment.
§ The Committee divided on the Question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause:—
| CONTENTS | … | … | 60 |
| NOT-CONTENTS | … | … | 107 |
| DIVISION LIST:—CONTENTS. | |
| Halsbury L. (L. Chancellor.) | Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) |
| Devonshire, D (L. President.) | Marlborough, D. |
| Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.) | Ailesbury, M. |
| Bristol, M. |
| Cholmondeley, M. | Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) |
| Exeter, M. | |
| Lansdowne, M. | Burton, E. |
| Salisbury, M. | Churchill, L. [TELLER.] |
| Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.) | Crawshaw, L. |
| Digby, L. | |
| Emly, L. | |
| Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain.) | Glenesk, L. |
| Harris, L. | |
| Clarendon, E. | Harschell, L. |
| Coventry, E. | James, L. |
| Dudley, E. | Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount Earl.) |
| Hardwicke, E. | |
| Jersey, E. | |
| Morley, E. | Kensington, L. |
| Onslow, E. | Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) |
| Romney, E. | |
| Saint Germans, E. | Lawrence, L. |
| Selborne, E. | Manners, L. |
| Spencer, E. | Monkswell, L. |
| Stamford, E. | Pirbright, L. |
| Waldegrave, E. [TELLER.] | Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.) |
| Rayleigh, L. | |
| Landaff, V. | Saye and Sele, L. |
| Oxenbridge, V. | Sinclair, L. |
| Stanmore, L. | |
| Salisbury, L. Bp. | Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.) |
| Winchester, L. Bp. | |
| Windsor, L. | |
| Ampthill, L. | Wolverton, L. |
| Ashbourne, L. | Zoncho of Haryng-worth, L. |
| Balfour, L. | |
| Belper L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| Grafton, D. | Verulam, E. |
| Newcastle, D. | Winchilsea and Nottingham, E. |
| Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.) | Bangor, V. |
| Northampton, M. | Falmouth, V. |
| Portman, V. | |
| Annesley, E. | Powerscourt, V. |
| Bandon, E. | Templetown, V. |
| Belmore, E. | |
| Caledon, E. | Ardilaun, L. |
| Camperdown, E. | Bolton, L. |
| Carnwath, E. | Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) |
| Cowper, E. | |
| Cranbrook, E. | Carew, L. |
| De La Warr, E. | Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.) |
| de Iontalt, E. | |
| Effingham, E. | Castletown, L. [TELLER] |
| Ferrers, E. | |
| Fortescue, E. | Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) |
| Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.) | Cheylesmore, L. |
| Huntingdon, E. | Clarina, L. |
| Ilchester, E. | Clonbrock, L. |
| Kilmorey, E. | Cloncurry, L. |
| Lanesborough, E. | Colchester, L. |
| Lucan, F. | Connemara, L. |
| Mayo, E. [TELLER.] | Crofton, L. |
| Portarlington, E. | De Freyne, L. |
| Portsmouth, E. | de Ros, L. |
| Rosse, E. | de Vesci, E. (V. de Vesci.) |
| Sandwich, E. | |
| Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) | Delamore, L. |
| Dunalley, L. |
| Dunleath, L. | Plunket, E. |
| Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.) | Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.) |
| Fingall, E. (E. Fingall.) | Rathdonnell, L. |
| Grinstead, E. (E. Enniskillen.) | Rathmore L. |
| Rossmore, L. | |
| Hare, E. (E. Listowel.) | Rowton, L. |
| Harlech, L. | Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.) |
| Inchiquin, L. | |
| Iveagh, L. | Seaton, L. |
| Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.) | Sherborne, L. |
| Shute, E. (V. Barrington.) | |
| Kilmaine, L. | |
| Kinnaird, L. | Silehester, E. (E. Longford.) |
| Leconfield, L. | |
| Macnaghten, L. | Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) |
| Massy, L. | |
| Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.) | Stalbridge, E. |
| Methuen, L. | Stanley of Alderley, E. |
| Middleton, L. | Sudley, L. (E. Arran.) |
| Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.) | Suffield, L. |
| Swansea, L. | |
| Monck, L. (V. Monck.) | Talbot de Malahide, L. |
| Monekton, E. (V. Galway) | Templemore, L. |
| Teynham, L. | |
| Monteagle of Brandon, L. | Tollemache, L. |
| Ventry, L. | |
| Muskerry, L. | Wantage, L. |
| North, L. | Wemyss, L (E. Wemyss.) |
| O'Neill, L. | |
| Oranmore and Browne, | Wenlock, L. |
| Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde. |
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CASTLETOWN moved to leave out Subsection (2). He asked the Government to explain exactly what the clause meant. It appeared to him to be very ambiguous, and he was advised that it was very doubtful if the Law Officers knew what the effect of this clause would be in the event of the Bill becoming law. He would cite an actual case in which the clause might have effect. There was a property at the present moment let for shooting purposes, and also with a demesne attached to it, and other outlying land also which was not demesne land. What would be the result if the incorporeal hereditament was segregated in this case from the demesne and other land? Supposing the tenant came into Court to have a fair rent fixed for outlying land, would not that have a very serious effect on the shooting right? On the other hand, would it not have a serious effect on the fair rent, because the landlord might hold that the incorporeal hereditament was so valuable that the fair rent was really of small value. As far as he could make out the clause was not of very great value, it only dealt with a 1625 few cases which had cropped up since I 1881—he believed five or six cases. He; ventured to suggest to the Government that this clause should be left out for the present, and that they should allow those litigants who chose to come before ordinary tribunals to decide these cases. He was afraid the clause as it stood would lead to further litigation.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDthought that grievances had arisen oftener than his noble Friend thought in reference to this matter. Unquestionably it had been found in some cases that a man who was an honest farmer might have a portion of his land that would be demesne land, or otherwise not within the purview of the Land Acts, and he would from that circumstance lose the right to have his case considered under any section of the Land Act. That was considered to be a hardship. It was found that demesne land was capable of being treated separately from the rest of the holding without doing any injustice, and the tenant might be allowed to have a fair rent fixed in respect of the balance of the land which would clearly be within the purview of the Land Acts. He was not answerable for the tribunal under the Land Act of 1881, but they must assume that it would try to administer an Act fairly when their attention was directed to it; they were told here that they were not to consider it separately unless they made up their minds that it would not diminish the landlord's interest therein. It was only fair and reasonable to leave the tribunal that power of making the separation if it could be done justly.
§ LORD CASTLETOWNput the case of land which bad been let to a shooting tenant, where the grazing of a demesne had been let with it, but at the same time the grazing of fields which were not demesne. Could not the tenant go into Court to have a fair rent fixed for those particular fields?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid he was much obliged to the noble Lord for putting another conundrum to him.
§ LORD CASTLETOWNsaid the Bill was full of them.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDpointed out that the cases were all governed by certain words. It 1626 rested with the tribunal to say whether they would make any division or whether they would insist on treating it as a whole, and they would only allow it to be broken up into different parts if they thought it could be done without diminishing the landlord's interest therein.
§ LORD CASTLETOWNThen I understand we are practically at the mercy of the Court in this matter.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYasked if it would not be possible to define to the Court what their real position should be. They acknowledged that they were at the mercy of the Court.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid that his words were not that they would be at the mercy of the Court. It was a matter that was left to judicial discretion to determine, and he was not aware that there was any different method. It was open to the landlord, when the division was made, to come to the Court and say, "Do not make the division because it will diminish the value of my interest therein." The landlord would submit evidence to show that the division of the holding would diminish the landlord's interest and the tenant would deny that such would be the case, with the result that the matter would have to be decided by the discretion of the Sub-Commissioner.
§ LORD CASTLETOWNsuggested that the difficulty might be overcome by the omission of the words "or is an incorporeal hereditament."
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid that might strike a most serious blow at the whole principle of the clause.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEhoped that the noble Lord would press his Amendment to a Division, because he had already elicited from the Government that the Irish landlords were entirely at the mercy of the Land Commissioners, and he did not think that their experience of that mercy led them to think that it was worth much.
§ LORD CASTLETOWNsaid that as he had succeeded in extracting so much information on the subject from the noble and learned Lord, he would not press his Amendment to a Division.
§ Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
1627
§
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON moved, in Hub-section (3), to leave out the words "may if it think just," and to insert after the word "common" the words—
may, if it think that it is just, and that no portion of the holding when divided will be of less value than ten pounds valuation.
His object in moving the Amendment was to prevent an undue sub-division of the holdings.
§ * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid that he would accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF ARRAN moved to omit Sub-section (3). It appeared to him that the sub-section opened the door to the undue sub-division of holdings. The sub-section would affect a large number of holdings, and in the interest of the tenants themselves as well as of the community, he moved his Amendment.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid that he thought the danger of undue subdivision was obviated by the Amendment which had just been accepted. The limitation of the value of the holding to be separated to £10 would operate as a sufficient safeguard against undue sub-division.
* LORD INCHIQUINsaid he thought that the sub-section would permit of the sub-division of large farms of 100 acres which would be most undesirable. In one case he knew of, a man died leaving his farm between his two brothers, one of whom had since died and had been succeeded by his widow, the farm being divided between her and the surviving brother. This was a most dangerous practice.
§ * LORD MACNAGHTENsaid the subsection was vicious in principle and would certainly lead to a good deal of litigation.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 5,—