LAND LEGISLATION (IRELAND).

HL Deb 05 July 1897 vol 50 cc1044-83

Debate on the Motion to resolve, 1st. That in the opinion of this House the time has arrived when, in the interests of justice, some compensation should be granted to landowners for the rights of which they have been deprived by the State; 2ndly. That some relief might equitably be afforded to landowners by granting State loans on the same terms as those given to land occupiers, to facilitate the purchase by the landlord of the tenant-right or goodwill of the occupier where he is willing to sell such interest, or for any other purposes sanctioned by Parliament.—(Lord Inchiquin.) Resumed (according to order).

LORD CLONBROCK

said that in resuming the Debate on his noble Friend's Motion, he felt himself in some embarrasment, as so very long a time had elapsed since, in deference to the wishes of many Peers, he moved the adjournment of the Debate, that the very able and exhaustive speech of his noble Friend could not be as fresh in the recollection of the House as it would have been had it been shortly followed by the resumption of the Debate. He trusted that under the circumstances he would not be accused of unnecessary repetition if he travelled over some of the ground his noble Friend Lord Inchiquin covered, and recalled to the attention of the House the various points and illustrations his hon. Friend adduced in support of his argument. The loss of which Irish landlords complained was not connected with the reduction of rents. It was often said that the reductions of rent in England were as great as- those in Ireland, and that therefore the Irish landlords had nothing to complain of. The comparison was not a correct one, but it was sufficiently plausible to mislead those who were not thoroughly aware of the differences existing between the two countries; it was not a correct one, inas- much as the reductions proceeded from a totally different source. In England the reductions undoubtedly proceeded from agricultural depression. But they were informed the other day, on the authority of the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that agricultural depression did not exist in Ireland in anything like the same extent as it did in England. The cause, therefore, of the reductions of rents must be sought elsewhere. The statement he had just referred to was made at the time the question of agricultural rates was before the House of Commons, and without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the great scheme then sketched out by the First Lord of the Treasury, he must candidly acknowledge the consideration the right hon. Gentleman extended to the landlords in the way he dealt with that subject. That, however, had nothing to do with the subject now under consideration. What was complained of was that the selling value of land in Ireland had been reduced from 22 or 23 years' purchase to 17, 16, or even 15 years' purchase. It was quite clear that that was independent of the reduction of rent. He must not be supposed to undervalue reduction of rent, which had struck terror into every landlord in Ireland he merely said this was independent of it if it were not there was no reason why the number of years' purchase should have varied, and property should have sold for the same number of years' purchase of the reduced rent as it formerly did of the higher rent. But now it was reduced from 22 or 23 years' purchase of the old rent to 17, 16, or 15 of the reduced rent. In other words, one-fourth of the fee-simple of the property of the landlord had been taken from him without compensation and transferred to the tenant. That was the effect chiefly of the Land Act of 1881, which introduced fixity of tenue and tenant-right, and he deeply regretted that last year Her Majesty's Government, by extending the operations of that Act and by bringing fresh holdings under its operation, set the seal of their approval on its provisions. Their Lordships could easily understand what the result of such depreciation of property, especially of encumbered property, must be. Mortgagees were trembling for their money; landlords were forced to sell, and driven from their properties and their homes. Ono sometimes hears the view expressed that the sooner property was transferred to the tenant the better; but he did not think that those who advocated that view had fully considered the results of its adoption, and he could not think such a view could be held by the Government. Whatever might be the future of land purchase in Ireland, whether, if we could look forward for 50 or 100 years, we should find, as seemed generally to be assumed, the land occupied by a prosperous and contented peasant proprietary, or whether, as sonic with perhaps no less knowledge of the country Were disposed to fear, we should find that one or two thrifty men in each district had bought out the others, and that there were as many landlords in Ireland as now, and a great deal harder ones, whatever might be the issue of this great scheme, it surely could not be held to be an advantage that those who now constituted the land-owning class in Ire-land should be utterly exterminated. It must surely be deemed preferable on the ground of expediency alone that there should be still left in the country some people of rat her more education told culture than the ordinary agricultural class, to assist in administering the affairs of t he country, and in other ways promoting its interests, and that a helping hand should be extended by the State to save those who had so grievously suffered by legislation front ruin and expatriation. It was, however, not on grounds of expediency that he appealed; he wished to urge the higher claim of justice. Tenant-right never before existed out of Ulster. In the other three provinces it was strictly guarded against. His noble Friend (Lord Inchiquin) had informed the House that on his property the incoming tenant had to sign a paper certifying that no money had passed between him and the outgoing tenant, and that, nevertheless, a tenant who had taken a farm shortly before 1881 at £150 a year (subsequently reduced to £130) had a few years later sold the tenant-right for £1,250. He himself knew instances on a property with which he was intimately connected where the then landlord, finding that, behind his back, an incoming tenant had paid money to an outgoing one, reimbursed the new tenant for his outlay, saying that he was not going to have his property fined down in that fashion. In all the provinces, except Ulster, landlords had set their faces against any such buying and selling of their property. The transfer of one-fourth of the fee simple was a bonus to the sitting tenant, and to the sitting tenant alone. It was what he had never paid for, never had, and to which he could make no claim. Nor could it be justified by any increase in t he letting value of the land consequent on the improvements by the tenant. He was the last man in the world to say that a tenant should not be compensated to the last farthing for any boná fide improvement, adding to the letting value, for which he had riot received any return in money or money's worth. But when improvements were spoken of, deterioration must be taken into account. At the time of the Morley Select Committee he had been much surprised to find it generally assumed by the so-called Nationalist Members that the land had been generally improved by the tillage of the farmers. He had written to all the most experienced men in his county, and to some in Mayo and Roscommon. He received the saute answer from all—that for one acre improved they could point to 100 deteriorated. It must be remembered that this was a country of small farms, where a man who paid £50 a year rent was considered a large farmer. But in all Ireland one-third of the agricultural holdings did not exceed 15 acres in area. He would not weary their Lordships with a long description of deterioration, but would only mention salient points. In former times the practice of burning the land had been so common that repeated Acts of Parliament were passed to prevent it. Later there had been the immoderate use of guano, which experienced agriculturists denounced as nearly as bad. Since then constant mowing, and selling the hay off the land, raising green crops with artificial manure, and selling them in the market, feeding young stock without top dressing, and other bad and careless husbandry had reduced the land to a far greater amount in value than that of any improvement by the tenant in buildings or otherwise. If a landlord should by any unforeseen circumstances regain possession of his property, and was rich enough and foolhardy enough to lay out money on Irish land, he would sweep away all the so-called improvements of the tenant, and by a long system of tillage try to get the land into decent condition. When Mr. Parnell's phrase of "prairie value" was used, he had heard landlords say, "Prairie value, I wish I could get my land back in its prairie state." This deterioration was well known to the tenants themselves. In 1877 when farming was a more prosperous business than now, a landlord in County Tipperary told him that some 60 year leases had just fallen in, and that he had proposed to the tenants to give them new leases at the old rent. They objected to the rent as being too high. He represented to them that as 1817 was a year of notorious agricultural depression, the rents then fixed could not be considered too high. Their answer was "Ah, but the laud was new then!" showing how fully aware they were that the land had suffered under their treatment and that of their predecessors in title. He did not wish to speak hardly of these small tenants, they were a poor and uneducated set of men and knew no butter, and if prejudiced and averse to new ideas, were not the only class of the agricultural community so constituted. Nor did he mean that there were no improving tenants, those in mountain and moorland districts must be placed in a different category. But it was not just 50 or 100 who have deteriorated their land should receive the treatment due to one or two who have improved it. He feared he was encumbering ins remarks with a mass of detail, but things in Ireland, although nominally similar to things in England, differed so essentially Irma them that it was necessary to dwell on a number of small points. He believed his argument to ho sound, if not let it be refuted. He called on the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench, the Lord Chancellor for Ireland, who added to his profound legal knowledge an intimate acquaintance with everything in that country, to say whether one quarter of the fee simple of the landlord's property had not been transferred to the tenant, and whether that transfer could be justified equitable or economic grounds. This less was not contemplated by the statesman who framed the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881. Mr. Gladstone said on April 4, 1870:— The establishment of good la WS will produce that sense of security on the rata of tenants, and that disposition hi invest capital in land, which will make the land in Ireland not worth merely 20 or 25 years purchase, but will raise it altogether to, or nearly to, the value of land in England or Scotland. On other occasions Mr. Gladstone repeatedly said that landlords would gain rather than lose by I he Land Acts, and moreover that if they incurred any loss they were fully entitled to compensation. His noble Friend had quoted several passages front lhis speeches mid other members of his Government. He also quoted from independent authorities, among others front the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. From a remark of the noble and learned Lord he gathered that ho had seen no reason to vary his, opinion, and he therefore hoped they might hear his voice raised in support of their claims. The rights of property were always jealously safeguarded, except in this instance. If a. few acres of a man's property were taken for any public work he was amply compensated. The cases were absolutely parallel. One fourth of the fee simple of their properties had been taken from them for a. supposed public advantage, and it would be only just tied in the event of a sale the difference in the selling; value caused by legislation should be made up to the landlord by the State. In other cases loans Should be granted to landlords at the smite ride as now granted to tenants to enable them to pay off their incumbrances and save them from ruin. Neither would affect him personally, he had no incumbrances he was anxious to pay off, and he did not wish his property. Wisely or unwisely his desire was to "stick to the ship." He wished to keep up his present relations with those among whom the greater part of his life, had been spent, and of whose induct to himself he had nothing to complain; but he did appeal on behalf of many he knew in Ireland who were on the brink of ruin, through their Lordships' House to the people of England, to whose sense of justice, he believed no one appealed in vain, to listen to their just claim, and to save them from absolute ruin. ["Hear, hear!"]

*THE MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY

said his noble Friend who introduced the Motion did so with such ability and so explicitly, that he hardly thought it was necessary for him to support his statements, and those statements had been so ably supported by his noble Friend who had just sat down that he felt some reluctance in trespassing on the time of the House. He would not, however, like it to go forth that these two noble Lords were not supported by the other landowners, not only in the House, but in all parts of Ireland, or that their views were not endorsed, that the ruin that was impending over the heads of a certain number of the landowning class in Ireland, was due, not to economic reasons, not to the depression of agriculture, but was due entirely to certain Acts of the Legislature, which in the words of his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, had filched away their property. ["Hear, hear!"] He would not enter into the administration of the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881. He would not denounce or criticise those Acts, for, in the presence of two noble Lords opposite who were Members of the Government which passed these Acts, he would say that he believed they passed them in the sincere belief that the landowning class would not be injured by them, and that they never apprehended the danger that was in them. In corroboration of that belief, he would refer to. some remarks of Mr. Bright, a leading Member of the then Cabinet, who said in regard to the Act of 1881— My view is, that in reality the rents in Ireland will, for the most part, in nine cases out of ten, be fixed very much as they are now. Mr. Forster, who was Chief Secretary when the Act was passed, said:— The final result of the Measure will be that the landlords of Ireland, small and large, will be better off than they are at the present moment. And Lord Carlingford, who represented the Irish Government in their Lordship's House said: "I maintain that the Bill will cause the landlords no money loss whatever," while Lord Selborne, the then Lord Chancellor, said:— I deny that the Bill will in any degree whatever diminish the rights of the landlord or the value of his interest. If it had not been for these assurances, the Land Act of 1881 would not only not have passed their Lordship's House, but it would not have pased the House of Commons. Consequently, he maintained that it was entirely due to these prognostications of prophecies that an Act was allowed to pass, which had brought almost to ruin the landowning class in Ireland, which he believed the Government of the day honestly meant to protect. He did not think that any one with any practical experience of Ireland would contradict him when he said that those prophecies had been entirely falsified. If any one proposed to contradict hint he would refer hint to a subsequent speech of the same Lord Chancellor, Lord Selborne, who advocated the Act of 1881 because he contended it could not be fraught with any danger to the landlords. Six years afterwards, in 1887, he found that Lord Selborne used the following expression, which endorsed to the hilt all he had said. Lord Selborne said:— I would rather have cut off my hand than have been a party to the pleasure of 1881, giving the House the reasons and assurances then gave, if I had had a notion that within five years after its passing it would be thrown over by its authors. After the quotations he had given, he thought their Lordships would allow that it was entirely due to Acts of the Houses of Parliament that the landowning interest in Ireland was placed in its present perilous and almost miserable condition. ["Hear, hear!"] Mr. Gladstone certainly said in 1881 that the landowning class were no longer landowners, but merely rent chargers; but they were not even the rent chargers he imagined them. They were the mere nominal proprietors of a rent charge which was gradually and surely diminishing. ["Hear, hear!"] Consequently he maintained that their condition was one which had never before been put on any class of the community. Land was constantly taken for the purpose of constructing a railway or enlarging a town, but full compensation was always paid. Could anyone say that one shilling of compensation had been given to the landowning class for the property which had been filched away from them? Compensation had never been denied to anyone whose property had been taken away from him. Mr. Gladstone himself, when he described the landowning class as rent chargers, said:— The Legislature has, no doubt, a perfect right to reduce the landlord to that position, but," he added, "giving him proper compensation for any loss he may sustain in money. And that statement was corroborated by Sir Roundell Palmer, and when it was seen tied the gentleman who introduced the Act of 1881, declared that if property was taken away from hint the owner sly odd receive compensation, he maintained the landlords had a right to compensation at the hands of a Conservative Government, who opposed the Measure and declared that compensation was the just right of the man whose property was taken away. ["Hear, hear!"] There were Members of their Lordship's House who were Members of the House of Commons, and made most able speeches in opposition to the Act of 1881. His noble Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland addressed himself to this question with an ability which commanded the admiration of the Conservative Party, and he was supported by the present Lord Privy Seal. The latter said:— You are going to take away something which has hitherto been considered as belonging to the landlord, and to hand it over to the tenant, and you arc not going to pay the landlord anything for it. It comes to that, and I cannot for one moment imagine that in all these discussions the question of compensation has not entered into the minds of the Government … But that does not alter the question whether compensation ought to be given or not. All I can say is, give the tenant by all means the full value, if he wants it, of his improvement, but let us have a reckoning up. … Let the Government say, As in all other cases where we take property from one man for the benefit of others, we offer put compensation, full, fair, and ample compensation, for the injury we undoubtedly do to your estates. His noble Foal learned Friend below him said:— Can any HIM say that the property of the Irish landlord is not damaged in the market to the extent of millions by this legislation? With certainty of reduction of rent, with a penalty on raising it, with the practical certainty of never resuming possession, I ask is there not a clear mutilation of property? is there not a distinct expropriation? If there was an expropriation at the hands of Parliament, the very least Parliament could do was to give compensation for it. These remarks were made by his two noble Friends when in Opposition. They were now in office. It remained to be seen whether they were prepared to carry out in office the pledges they gave in Opposition. [''Hear, hear!"] They might say, "We are not responsible for the Acts of 1870 and 1881." No, but they are responsible for the Act of 1896, and having taken upon themselves that responsibility, he maintained they were part and parcel of the Government who passed the other Acts. As they had aggravated the hardships of the landowners, they were as responsible as noble Lords opposite for the rectification of the expropriation of the landlords and the mutilation of their property. ["Hear, hear!] His noble and learned Friend below him made many speeches on the Act of 1896, but he never heard him allude to the subject of compensation, and he would ask him why, if, in his own words, the Act of 1881 mutilated the landlords' property and expropriated them, when the Government were aggravating their hardships in 1896, he did not say one word as to compensation for that mutilation and expropriation. ["Hear, hear!"] It might be asked, What course could the Government pursue in order to mitigate the misfortunes of the landowners? The Irish landowning class were groaning at the present moment under various hardships. The question of lithe rent-charge, pressed hardly and unduly in certain sections of the community. That was a fact which his noble and learned Friend would not contradict, and he thought it was his duty, as a Member of the Government, to see that some inquiry was made into the question of the hardships borne by the landowning class, with a view to ascertaining whether something could not be done to mitigate their sufferings. One important point was the question of ameliorating the condition of the landowning class by advancing public money at a cheap rate of interest, so that the enormous charges which so many of them had now to pay might be reduced. Whilst the landlords' rents had been steadily reduced, their mortgages had remained the same. He did not suggest that the Government should ask the encumbrancers to reduce the interest due to then by one shilling, but he urged that the Government should advance money at 3 or 3¼ per cent. to enable the landlords to pay off mortgages which were in many cases effected in a hurry and in moments of excitement at five per cent. or even more. The Government could do this without any risk to themselves—["hear, hear!"]—and thereby assist the landlords materially. If there was one characteristic for which the English people were well known, it was their sense of justice, and he believed that if the people thoroughly understood that one class in the community had been seriously injured, not through economic causes, but by Act of Parliament, they would be anxious to redress the landlords' grievance.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

I am very glad to understand from my noble Friends connected with Ireland that they do not intend to push this Motion to a Division. If they did, I should feel myself placed in great difficulty. I agree with every word in the Resolution considered on its own merits, but I doubt very much whether it would be expedient for this House, and to the interest of the supporters of the Motion, that we should adopt the Resolution in the formal way. I do not think that it would forward the cause of compensation by a single step. That compensation must be more or less pecuniary, and we have no power over the funds of the State. Then it might alienate in a measure the friendly disposition of the Government, to whose good will, after all, my noble Friends must trust. But I should think myself unworthy of the position which I hold in your Lordships' House if I did not take this opportunity of saying that with the words and spirit of the Resolution and the course of conduct to which it points I absolutely agree. I beg you to observe that there is not a word of censure against the Act of 1881 in this Resolution. I am anxious to point out that my advocacy of compensation in this case is entirely separate from my opinion of the merits or demerits of the Act of 1881. My opinion of that Act is well known to your Lordships, and I am not going to trouble the House by expressing it again. Many people are inclined to say, "Whatever were the demerits of the Act of 1881, it was conceded as an Act of political necessity." I do not agree that it was an act of political necessity, and my opinions are so strong, and, I hope, so clear, with regard to the principle of private rights, against which that Measure committed a gross and unjustifiable aggression, that I will never admit that it was a necessary act of public policy. But, admitting for a moment that that Measure was a necessary Act of public policy, that does not at all preclude, but rather strengthens, the claim for compensation put forward by the landlords. Look at what took place in 1846 under the Government of Sir Robert Peel when he granted the repeal of the Corn Laws as an act of public policy. No one can imagine that the agricultural interests in this country, that the landlords of England, Scotland, and Ireland, had a vested interest in the taxation of the country, taxation which had an indirect effect in protecting land. They had no such vested interest; but the Irish landlords had undoubtedly vested rights in the rental of their estates. Well, it was thought at that time that the granting of free trade would be a serious blow to the agricultural interest, and Sir Robert Peel offered large measures of compensation to the landowning class. He proposed to grant a loan for agricultural purposes at a cheap rate, and this loan had an important effect in enabling us to meet the concussion caused by the change of system. I have reason to know myself the great value of that loan, for I had just succeeded to my property, and borrowed under that Act £10,000, which greatly relieved the pressure which was undoubtedly caused for a t hue by the introduction of Free Trade. This money was spent on my estates under Government inspect ion on the drainage and enclosure of land, and partly on the emigration of the overcrowded population of the Hebrides. There is an example of the public's coining forward to help an interest which was indirectly affected by a measure which was undoubtedly due to a consideration of the interests of the public. Now, what difference is there in this case? It was promised that the Act of 1881 should not be allowed to interfere with your Lordships' pecuniary interests The predictions of the Government of the day—they were my colleagues, but I did not believe one word that they said—[laughter]—their predictions have been falsified; and how have they been falsified? It is the fault of Parliament of all parties that they have been falsified. I reminded your Lordships some weeks ago that in the Bill as it left the Cabinet there was a rule in guide the Commissioners in estimating rent. In June, when the Bill was in Committee. some one moved to strike out the words which directed that rent should be assessed as rent is assessed for the purpose of taxation. The Amendment was agreed to by the Government, and very few Members seemed to see flint the mode of estimating rental was thereby left entirely in the discretion of the Commissioners. The Commissioners were without guidance, and there was no appeal. Each Commissioner was free to dispose of the property of the landlords of Ireland as he might please. It was not creditable that such an Act should have been passed by a civilised Parliament at the end of the 19th century. ["Hear, hear!"] There was only one Member, as far as I can find out, who foresaw what would happen and expressed his views, and he was Mr. (now Sir) John Gorst. He not only observed upon the point, but moved an Amendment which directed the Commissioners that they should take into consideration the market value of land in the country, the value of tenant rights, and so on. A long discussion followed upon that, and Mr. Arthur Balfour, a great Conservative leader, discounted it altogether, urging that you should allow the Court, so-called, absolutely free discretion! Your Lordships may think I am exaggerating the state of the law under which the Land Laws are administered. Look at these extracts from Mr. Morley's Committee. In 1894 the House of Commons, on the Motion of Mr. John Morley, appointed a Committee of which he was Chairman. That Committee was largely composed of Nationalist Members and English Radical Members, with a very small representation of the Unionist Party, and here is the Report which they arrived at, I believe unanimously, on the state of 'natters,— As regards the powers of the Commissioners each individual administrator acts absolutely according to his own opinion of what may have been intended, and there is neither common understanding of the law nor anything approaching uniformity of practice. ["Hear, hear!"] Just conceive that state of things on the part of a body of men to whom you have given absolute power over the property of a large class of Her Majesty's subjects! No law whatever, no indication of the general principle even, on the part of Parliament, but everything left to the individual discretion of the Commissioners! Who were these men who were appointed? There were three gentlemen of high individual character, and I dire say if we are to restore the Star Chamber in our time such men would administer it quite as well as the men in the time of Charles I. [Laughter.] But I do not think that is the principle of civilised law. Look at what Justice O'Hagan said in opening the Court. He made a long speech ending with a Latin quotation the purport of which was that they were not a Court like any other Court, guided by known precedents and law, but they proceeded on their own discretion, in the darkness—in tenebris But he encouraged the Court to go on with courage, and my Lords, they have and they have disposed of the property of the landlords precisely as they pleased. [Hear, hear!"] What have you gained for all this? Have you gained the contentment of the tenant class? Not a bit. ["Hear, hear!"] They demand more, and they will demand all until they get all. [Cheers.] They openly avow that they wish the landlord class to be swept out of Ireland. Have your Lordships read the letter addressed to Lord Salisbury by the Ulster Land Committee? They are just as discontented as the landlords, and in this remarkable document they say there is no law guiding these decisions, that the Comissioners have laid down certain laws of their own, that the Ulster farmers are not, therefore, receiving justice in the Land Courts, a state of matters which deserves the grave attention of Her Majesty's Government. So that it is not the landlords only who ask for an inquiry, but the tenants, and they say, with just as much reason, that "We do not agree with the principles, if there are any, by which these men are guided, and we are suffering injustice." You have not gained the confidence of the tenant class. It may be asked, what are the principles which they themselves would lay down? I will tell you one principle which these Ulster gentlemen lay down. They defend the tenant class against the accusation that they give extravagant prices for tenant right. It is not right to pay extravagant rents, but it is quite right to bid large capital sums for tenant right—that is glorious enterprise—only these extravagant prices ought to be charged against the landlord. When t hey bid a sum notoriously above the value of all the improvements, then the interest in respect of this sum is to be deducted from the landlord's rent. That is, the Irish tenants are to be encouraged in the wildest speculations, and the interest on the loans for these speculations are to be charged on the landlord's rent. These are the principles you have let loose on the land; you have laid down no others, and you have opened the door to all these absurd demands from all classes interested. That is what you have done, and how they are to be allayed again I do not know. My own view is—you ought to take into consideration the grave injustice you have done by legislation which is scandalously unjust, and against all the interests of civilisation and the principles and practice of all civilised States. You ought, in consideration of the sufferings which have been brought upon the landlords which you did not expect, which you predicted would not take place—I do not say you ought to compensate as you did the slave owners in Jamaica by a sum of money, but you ought to consider now far, without burdening the public, you may by cheap loans do what you have so largely done in the case of the tenant to enable the landlords to recover their position in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the purchase of land, is it not an absurd state of things that you hold out a bonus to people to buy land in Ireland, but only to one class? You hold out a great bonus to the tenants to buy land, but you hold out no bonus to any other class. Is that consistent with common sense? Are there no men with capital in Ireland not now connected with land, who would make good owners if encouraged to buy with security of tenure? Surely there are. I think the State ought to give cheap loans to the landlords as well as the tenants, to enable them, if possible, to recover their position in the country, and that, in my opinion, is the only way in which you can restore peace or contentment to Ireland. [Cheers.] In the meantime, the Government have announced the issue of another Commission. I have no hope that that Commission will do more, but that will be something, if they reiterate the finding of Mr. Morley's Commission, if they establish by incontestible evidence that no principle whatever has guided these men; and that, under circumstances precisely similar, in different parts of the country they have given a different decision, ruinous to one class, largely to the gain of another. ["Hear, hear!"] If the new Commission establishes these facts, it will be an additional claim upon Parliament and the public to help landlords who are suffering. [Cheers.] Even if this should not be the result, if the Land Act of 1881 be regarded—as I can never regard it—as an innocent concession to public necessity, even in that case you will, I hope, follow the example of Sir Robert Peel—and give what amelioration you can to the class which has suffered for the interests of the public. [Cheers.]

*THE EARL OF MAYO

thanked the noble Duke for having said what he had done on behalf of the Irish landlords. On the question of compensation what, he asked, was meant by it? It is made for some positive Injury sustained. Justice requires that it should be equal in value, if not like in kind, to that which is lost or injured. The law of compensation was admitted in 1833, when twenty millions was granted to the planters whose slaves were set free. Lord Althorp, the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion said:— The circumstances it was proposed to meet were unusual and without precedent. He submitted to their Lordships that the circumstances now were unusual and without precedent. In 1845 in Lands Clause Acts, compensation for land value was allowed, and in the Railway Clauses Consolidation Acts, 1845, it was also taken into consideration. This was no new question. It was raised by Lord Inchiquin in 1881, and by Lord Castle-town in '84. Since then the landlords' properties had gradually vanished and gene to the best protected tenant in the world. He said let the tenant be well protected, but this protection was carried out solely at the expense of the landowner. Adopting simple and non-legal let him tell their Lordships how the Irish tenant was protected. He could not be disturbed in his tenancy so long is he paid the rent fixed for him by an independent tribunal; his rent was fixed by Commissioners appointed by Statute and not by his landlord: he had absolute power of dealing with his holding by sale or otherwise; he could purchase his holding with money provided by Government; he repaid the money so provided by a terminable annuity, perhaps over 60 per cent. less than his old rent, and probably 30 to 36 per cent. less than the judicial rent. In the landlords' case an independent tribunal fixed his rents every 15 years and reduces them. The landlord had no power to deal with the tenant's holding; he had not the power of pre-emption or resumption; the Government provided no money to landowners for the same purposes as the tenant was provided with money for; the Government lent money to tenants at a low rate of interest. Landowners had no such facilities, except perhaps to drain lands, which lands the sub-commissioners could reduce the rent of. Not only had they to pay the interest on the loans, but they had also to suffer from the reduction of the Sub-commissioners every fifteen years. The Sub-Commissioners began reducing rents for the second term in July last in Co. Armagh by 50 per cent., and they had gone gaily on in the same strain. Lord Templetown raised a debate in July last on this question, when he said he wished to know on what principle the Sub-Commissioner reduced the rents. The Lord Chancellor's (Lord Halsbury's) answer was instructive:— What he would point out was, that the Government were as powerless as the noble Lord himself to discern what were the principles anon which the Commissioners had acted. The wisdom of Parliament had confided to them that duty, and the Government could not be expected to dive into the minds of the Commissioners and find out what were the principles on which they had proceeded. They could not find out, they did not wish to undertake that duty, they were not guided by any principles, they were not guided by prices, but people who acted without principles should have their procedure inquired into. That was admitted, and there was to be a Royal Commission to inquire into the procedure, and Irish landlords would see that proper evidence was laid before that Commission. This was not the only reason they had for speaking out. They had spoken on several occasions, they had spoken before a Government of the Party to which he belonged, and before a Government of the Party now in opposition; but no notice whatever had been taken of their representations. They had spoken on every matter connected with property in Ireland, and at last they had a word of sympathy from the present Prime Minister, who said to the deputation introduced by the Duke of Abercorn in March last:— In the days in which we live the class that does not complain is s class that will go to the wall. I commend these thoughts to you. I believe if you are suffering under injustice— and on this occasion I am not competent to express an opinion—but if you are suffering under injustice the remedy is in your own hands by taking care that injustice is not committed in a corner. A great many things were done in corners in Ireland of which there was little public knowledge. The Sub-Commissioners acted in a corner. The Prime Minister had given the cue, he had struck a chord and given the time to play. He was the leader, and they would keep time and tune together and play fortissimo—there would be no piano movements. ["Hear!"] Then as to the question of compensation. Injustice had been done, that everybody would have to admit. Property had been taken away, by a stroke of the pen, to the extent in his own case of £800 a year, and in many other cases of 15, 20, and 30 per cent. There were just laws amid there were unjust laws. Irish ladies and gentlemen had drained the bitter cup to the very dregs. He supposed it would be of no use his saying how people had been ruined, how ladies and gentlemen had not bread to put into their mouths, and had a desperate future before them. In discussing this question of compensation he did not in any way wish to "come down on the English taxpayer." There need be no fear about that, especially after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said in the commencement of his Budget speech when he spoke of being on the crest of a wave of prosperity such as this country had never experienced before. The Chancellor of the Exchequer sailed in a gilded ship upon a golden ocean, but the wave of prosperity did not touch the Irish shore, none of this prosperity reached the Irish landlord, nor the tenants. English law ground slowly, but it ground exceedingly small. What was the outlook for the Irish landowners? Like hard-pressed men, they were forced back against a wall built of Irish Land Acts, each stone of which was securely laid by English Parliamentary ingenuity. Through or over it there was no escape, and the Sub-Commissioners pressed close and hard. Was it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to let matters go on as now? Did they mean to ruin the Irish gentry and root them out? Was that the policy of the Government, as it seemed to have been of English statesmen since 1881? Was that what they were to look to? Did the Prime Minister and the present Government remember the Irish Unionist alliance and the last General Election? Did they remember how the Irish Union helped to bring the Government into power? Did they forget Brigg and Forfar? Eighty per cent. of the men who did the work for the Government and gave financial support, were Irish Unionists and landowners, and when the Alliance did not go down to the constituency those elections were lost. There was no gratitude in politics, and they expected none, but they liked to remind the Government or what they had done. They killed Home Rule, they saved the country from that, and Irish Unionists had a great deal to do with bringing the Government into power. In another place the First Lord of the Treasury had announced that local government was to be granted to Ireland with between £700,000 and £800,000 to carry it out. Who had carried on the local government of Ireland up to this? The country gentlemen. They did their duty in, local affairs, this auto was now handed over to make the scheme workable, still the Sub-Commissioners went round surely and quickly ruining the gentry. It was well said by a northern landowner, "Mr. Balfour gives me £40 a year, and the Sub-Commissioners have taken away £400." If they were ruined the gentry could take no part in local government. Of course the Government could leave local government to the men who now ruled on Boards of Guardians, and what they were was well known. He did not wish to abuse the other section of his fellow countrymen; there was no need to say anything of them. Irish landlords were more impressed by existing calamities than by the calculations and machinations of a distant and comprehensive intelligence. They felt that while the Government announced Local Government as a boon, the Sub-Commissioners were still at work. Of the Land Commission administered by three men, the Dublin wits said, "One cannot hear, one will not hear, and the other is never here." Given the best Land Commission in the world, they had to administer laws such as existed in no other country. Property was taken away by the process gone through without any compensation whatsoever. Constitutional Governments knew of no such Laud Laws as existed m Ireland at the present time. Even representatives of the people of Ireland admitted that, and had allowed that "some compensation was due to the Irish landlords." The men who admitted this were men whose policy was separation from England, and the ease must be hard indeed to call forth this admission. This question would be raised again. This was not the time to divide. They had pledged themselves not to divide; the time was not opportune, but at the proper time they would ask for the support of English Lords. The land question was approaching their borders very closely. There had been a Crofter Commission for Scotland, and this Session a Welsh Land Bill hail been introduced, hut not passed he was thankful to say. The question of compensation need not frighten English taxpayers. The easiest and most simple way would be the use of public money at it cheap rate. That was given to the tenants, and in all fairness why should it not be allowed to landlords? At the proper time a scheme would be put forward and tile Government LC asked seriously to consider this question of compensation. Next year the Local Government Bill would be brought on, and country gentlemen in Ireland having had their property taken away, would he deprived of the little influence they had in local affairs. Democracy would rule; but if the country gentlemen were to be submerged, at least some consideration should be given to the claim for compensation. The demand would be made of the Legislature, and it remained to be seen what the reply would be. They would ask to be granted some relief from the benevolent tyranny under which they lived.

*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)

The series of Statutes that go to make up the Irish Land Laws readily lend themselves to discussion. It is a novel code, and I suppose no Statute ever placed on the Statute-book more readily lends itself to criticism than the Land Act of 1881. It has supplied themes to all my noble Friends who have spoken to-night, and it has sustained a very vigorous attack from the noble Duke. I should indeed be in a strange position if I felt myself called upon to defend the Act of 1881. It was my duty in the House of Commons to take an active part in opposing the Bill in its entirety and in criticising its various clauses; therefore, it would not be possible for me to-night, unless I admitted that I had changed my mind and the views I then deliberately expressed, to stand for ward as a supporter and defender of that Act. What I sail in 1881 I thought; my thoughts I firmly expressed and I do not feel called upon to qualify or apologise for anything I then said. On that occasion, on one side, there were the expressions of hope that the Act would not do as much harm its was anticipated to the landlords, and, on the other side, there were the expressions of fear that, notwithstanding the benevolent intentions of those who put forward the Bill it would do violence to rights, and that it would lead to a substantial interference with views that had been theretofore held sacred with reference to property. Many, amongst others myself, expressed gluttony anticipations in reference to the working of some of its clauses, but Parliament, in its wisdom, passed by the arguments of the Opposition—they did not hearken to the fears and they gave great faith to the hopes—and, by large majorities, passed the Bill into an enactment. I remember well the portion of the Act of 1881, so pointedly brought into notice by the noble Duke in reference to the withdrawal of guy attempts to supply any special guide to the fixing of fair rents by the tribunal that was then set up. ["Hear, hear!"] Whatever may be the criticism of the Statute it has now been on the Statute-book for nearly 16 years, and it has been dealt with and amended by other Statutes, and it impossible now to call upon Parliament to ignore its provisions or to say that they can be set at naught and a repeal introduced in reference to them. That is the position that we, as practical men, have to face. It opens a wide, an immense question of a most far-reaching character to suggest that its provisions should be regarded as open to the principle of a general compensation in respect of its working and operation. It was obviously a far-reaching question, involving not only possibly claims for millions, but also an amount of detailed examination which possibly has not been present to the minds of many who have used the expression. Are you to retry, and if so by what tribunal, each fair-rent case in order to see how far it was not fair and how far it should have stopped short before the reduction was made? These are points of consideration which go to show the greatness and the intricacy of the question, as well as the vastness of the dimensions of the topic. The noble Duke, when he dealt with the question and referred in tones of sympathy to the discussion which has taken place, gave it as his clear opinion that it would be unwise to ask Parliament to pass a Resolution upon the subject, although it would be reasonable and fair, and not without a purpose, to discuss the topics which are involved in an examination of the Irish Land Code and this Act of 1881. As I understood, the noble Duke suggested that it was not desirable to seek to place upon the Order Bock of your Lordships' House any stereotyped Resolution such as that brought forward, and that it was more prudent to have a discussion which I may have a sympathetic aspect and which may lead to considerations that would induce Parliament to look favourably on those who allege that they have suffered by the provisions of the Act of 1881. The particular suggestion in the second part of the Motion of my noble Friend that advances should be made for the purchase of the tenant-right by the landlord is obviously an extremely difficult topic. It is one that requires an immensity of examination, and the more it is looked into the more it will be found to be surrounded by difficulties and complexities. The entire purchase code of Ireland rests upon the suggestion that it is desirable to make advances to occupying tenants to enable them to become the proprietors of their holdings. The suggestion involved in the latter part of the Motion would indicate not that the number of occupying proprietors should be increased, but that occupying tenants should be lessened by making advances to the landlord which would enable him, by buying up the tenant right, again to clothe himself with dominion over the property.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

I never dreamt of stopping the power now held by the tenants of getting assistance from the State to buy their farms. I only meant that, in addition to that, the landlord should also be allowed to acquire the tenant-right where it is in the market.

*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND

Again, the topics do not become more simple, because, in buying up tenant-rights in Ireland, I suppose one of the most extraordinary things that strikes ally one acquainted with Irish affairs is the enormous sums that are given for tenant right. [Cheers.]

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

Sometimes.

*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND

They are given very largely. ["Hear, hear!"] One of the matters most worthy of note in this difficult Irish land problem is that very often the sums given for tenant-right are entirely out of all proportion with what we would conceive to be the value of the interest that was bought. ["Hear, hear!"] It becomes, obviously, a difficult question to suggest that the State should step in and assist some one to buy up a commodity where the price was regulated not by mercantile principles, but by that land hunger and greed and desire to possess land that so often cause these immense prices to be given.

*LORD CASTLETOWN

pointed out that if the Land Commissioners would carry out the instructions they were given—namely, to fix in every case the value of the tenant-right, there would be no question of the tenant-right being abnormally high, because they would fix it, they assumed, on the true agricultural value.

*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND

That would not meet the particular point I am on. I am not for a moment going into the detail of it. I am only indicating that it is an immense question and not at all as simple as it looks. The suggestion that the State should enable the landlord to buy up the tenant-right does rather look at the question from the opposite point of view to that which is adopted in the whole purchase code, where the idea that underlies it all is the desirability and the utility from the public point of view of increasing the number of tenant occupying purchasers. Lord Londonderry suggested another point for sympathetic treatment, and that was in reference to the tithe rent-charge. That is a matter of great importance, and have always been anxious to see it dealt with, in a reasonable and sympathetic spirit. I gather the suggestion is put forward by my noble Friend, as other suggestions have been, as an indication of the matters in which a fairly reasonable and sympathetic consideration might possibly be given to the claims of the landlords, whilst at the same time feeling the enormous difficulty of presenting, as a topic for satisfactory or practical consideration, that of giving compensation for the working of an Act which has been in operation for so many years. My noble Friend Lord Londonderry suggested that my noble Friend the Manquess of Lansdowne, who was in charge of the Bill last year, then expressed an opinion in favour of the reduction of interest on charges. That is a mistake. My noble Friend says his remark was in reference to the short period of tune whilst the purchase was waiting completion, and that he suggested whether in that veils, short period of time there might not he some consideration as to whether less interest might be taken. It did not have the wide character indicated by Lord Londonderry. The topics involved here are of very great and acute interest to every one connected with Ireland and Irish land. A Commission is about to be started to enter on the inquiry that was stated in the House of Commons en Friday night, and I assume that the topics as to the working of the land code will be examined. I quite feel and admit that, though the Land Act of 1881 is upon the Statute-book, every one must desire that it should be administered fairly and reasonably—[cheers]—that every fair play should be given to all, and that it should in its working be carried out in a way so as to show every one that the desire was really to fix a rent that was fair and to carry out what was just to all. [Cheers.]

*LORD CASTLETOWN

thought the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken had not dealt with the exact point brought forward by the Lord Inchiquin. The noble and learned Lord went into the question of the Land Act of 1881, but he did not think that was the point they desired particularly to raise. They claimed that now they saw the actual effects of the Act of 1881 they were entitled to compensation, and if they could prove that by bringing for- ward cases, then he thought they had a fair ground of argument. Lord Mayo referred to the Motion he brought forward in 1884, and Lord Kimberley, who answered him at that time for the Government of the day, used some words which were worth calling to mind. In answering that Motion, which was for compensation indirectly, Lord Kimberley said:— If the Government had stepped in for some reason of policy of its own and, without there being any difficulty in obtaining their rents, had simply said, 'We think it necessary to pass an Act that will have the effect of producing rent.' and if in that cases there bad been no compensation given for such reduction, mat would have been confiscation. It could not be argued that any portion of this loss bad been caused by the Act in the sense that if it had not passed the landlords would not have suffered this loss. Thirteen years had passed away since then, and, of course, although he brought up at that time a great number of cases which proved that great ruin and suffering had fallen upon Irish landlords, the cases naturally now were more numerous and, he thought, more patent and clear. He thought he could show that proprietorial rights had actually been taken away from Irish landlords without any compensation. He did not propose to base his argument only on the cases that he should cite to their Lordships, but he would call as witnesses the noble Marquess, the Prime Minister, and the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for War, both of whom spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill of 1881. He thought he should be able to make it clear that if the State for State purposes took away any right or any property from any person, whatever his class, the State should roily compensate that person. In a very remarkable speech on the Second Reading of the Bill of 1881 the present Secretary of State for War said:— It is an attempt to quell an agrarian rebellion by the wholesale concession of proprietary rights to the peasantry of Ireland, a concession which has been extorted by violence and agitation. These rights you are asked to create. The noble Marquess went on to say:— We are going to divide that which until now has been the property of single person between that person and another, and having divided it, you are going to say to the one, 'The value of your share shall be closely re-rioted and confined by a tribunal to which we are going to band you over,' and to the other, 'You shall be free to dispose of your share to the highest bidder in the open market. Those words were absolutely prophetic. ["Hear, hear!"] Estates on which improvements had been made by the landlords—and there were a great many of such estates in Ireland—were treated exactly in the same way as estates on which no improvements were made by the landlord. His father expended nearly £200,000 in improving his estate. The rents were reduced exactly in the same manner, almost in the same percentage, as the rents on contiguous estates on which no improvements had been made by the landlord. Practically, rights which the noble Marquess said were to be created were deducted from the improvements and from the corpus of the estate and were handed over to the tenant. Therefore, he maintained that under those circumstances he, as the successor of his father, was entitled to some compensation. In the Debate on the Bill of 1881, the present Prime Minister said:— The noble Lord seems to think this is quite reasonable (the Bill of 1881). Say I took a man five years ago, and put him into a bit of my park, which I turn into a farm. I gave him no promise, no right to sell the tenancy which he receives. He took it on the clear understanding that he was a tenant from year to year, liable to be evicted, and to have his rent raised according to any agreement to which we might come. He took it under the full understanding that he was liable to leave it. Then this Act comes suddenly down and transfers to him all the rights which he did nothing to earn, nothing to purchase, and which rights are taken away from me. That was a most remarkable statement, and there were many cases in Ireland in which what was there stated had actually happened. There was the case of his own farm. In 1881 that farm was held by a Scotchman, who had made no improvements. The whole of the buildings belonged to the landlord. The Act of 1881 was passed, and then the farm practically belonged to the Scotchman. The farm was held by what was called a. year to year tenancy, and he was told by counsel that he had no right to interfere. The end of it was that he had to pay the Scotchman £1,500 to leave the farm, who had spent nothing on it, but in reality allowed it to deteriorate. Surely if there was any case for compensation that was the one. He had been informed of the case of an agricultural tenancy. A grass farm of about 100 acres was held from year to year. The landlord unluckily made no attempt to make any change before the Act of 1881. He found that the farmer had for four or five years meadowed the farm. The man went on doing that for seven years, and then the landlord said he must sell the farm, as it was being run out. Counsel, however, advised the landlord that he could not do anything, as the moment the Act of 1881 was passed the farm practically belonged to the tenant, so long as he paid his rent. "If you evict him," said Counsel, "he has the right to sell his interest or, at any rate, he can force you into Court. Your best plan is to buy back the farm," and the landlord gave the man £2,000 for the farm. There were many other similar cases, but at that late hour of the evening he would not weary their Lordships by citing them. One case, however, he particularly wished to mention, it related to drainage charges and was typical of many others. The rent of the farm before the Act of 1881 was passed was £24, and there was a drainage charge of £8. 5s., making a total of £32. 5s. The tenant applied to have his rent fixed, but he waited until 1892. The rent was fixed at £17, but on appeal raised to £78, and the drainage charge of £8. 5s. was placed on the landlord's shoulders. The new rent was, therefore, £9. 15s., as against £32. Such cases could be multiplied by hundreds. Surely when that was the case one might use the words which Mr. Balfour, when speaking in the House of Commons upon an Amendment made by the House of Lords, and relating to the possibility of carving tenant-right out of the rent used, namely,— If this amendment was not raised, the Bill would be open to the charge of being a scheme of public plunder. The noble Lord who had just sat down said that the Act was on the Statute Book and must remain there. But surely the landlords were justified in claiming compensation for the injury the Act had inflicted upon them. Many more cases might be cited which bear out the facts that I have brought forward, but I will not weary the House by going into them in detail. Noble Lords who have already spoken have referred to the compensation given to slave-owners and to those whose property is taken by the State under the Railway Acts, or through compulsory Acts of Parliament. The great ground landlords of England will receive thousands of pounds in compensation if a railway runs under their house. The landlords of Ireland receive no compensation when the Sub-Commissioners scamper over their properties, reduce the value of those properties by 30 or 40 per cent., or when an Act of Parliament like that of 1881 deprives the Irish landlords of proprietorial rights and reduces the value of the cor pus of the estate by many thousands of pounds. The property taken by the State should be paid for by the State, and those landlords who have suffered loss and ruin in the cause of State necessity and for purposes of State expediency should be compensated by the action of the State. I will quote again the words of the present Secretary of State for War in his remarkable speech on the Second Reading of the Bill of 1881. His words were:— It is an attempt to quell an agrarian rebellion by the wholesale concession of proprietory rights to the peasantry of Ireland, a. concession which has been extorted by violence and agitation. These rights you are asked to create. The rights he refers to have been exacted and extorted from and out of the property of the Irish landlords, and I maintain if there is any justice in any case whatsoever, and if the State is not to be allowed to rob with impunity any class, however unrepresented in Parliament, however weak or few in numbers, then I am clear that every right-thinking man within the Empire will demand that the Irish landowners shall receive that compensation to winch they are justly and fully entitled.

*THE EARL OF BELMORE

said there was a very important question which he proposed to bring before their Lordships shortly—ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge. What he proposed to ask their Lordships on an early day to do was, to pray Her Majesty to appoint a. Royal Commission to consider and report—(1) To what extent the payers of ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge in Ireland (exclusive of cases where the tithe rent-charge has been purchased for cash) are reasonably entitled to a reduction in the present annual amount of such tithe rent-charge (including the amount of annuities in cases where the tithe rent-charge has been commuted), having regard (1) to the fall in the amount of the tithe rent-charge ill England during recent years; (2) to the fall in the market price in Ireland of the articles on which such tithe rent-charge was originally fixed; (3) to the reductions of lay tithe rent-charge which have been made on this basis in Ireland; and (4) upon any other grounds. (2) Whether, and to what extent, such, ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge could be reduced or extinguished at the present time (or at some future date) without material prejudice to the security of the loans at present charged upon the Irish Church estate. On previous occasions when he hid brought this subject forward, what he had asked for was a readjustment respecting tithe annuities, which had been partly granted in, the Land Act of 1896. What he now meant to ask for was something different; and would demand previous inquiry, as would any of the proposals' which, had been made by his noble Friends, and which he allowed would be full of difficulties, were practical effect to be sought to be given to them he should not, however, go into the matter now, but he trusted the Government would give it, their consideration during the recess.

*LORD INCHIQUIN

deplored the fact that the strongest Government they had had for many years had not the backbone to inquire into this question. If they had said they would give it their consideration he would have been content, but they had not even gone so far. They had avoided meeting the case, and ho could only express his deep regret at the action of the Government. It teas very questionable whether a division should be taken, because if this question were dealt with at all, it must be dealt with in the House of Commons. They perfectly well knew that, and for that very reason they said, "No, we should prefer to make our case good here, and allow the Government to consider what they will do." If this Government which was so strong could turn round and say, "We know this injury has been done, but we are not prepared to deal with it," then he said it was a blot on the English escutcheon which had never yet appeared on it. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the second Resolution, there was no difficulty. Landlords, when they could find the money, had plenty of facility for buying up the tenant right. The difficulty in all this legislation was that this unfortunate dual ownership had been established, and all he proposed was that as money was lent to the tenant in order to buy out the landlord, money should be lent to the landlord with which to buy out the tenant, and so to get the land into one hand. ["Hear, hear!"] The purchaser would then be in possession of his own property and would be able to get the market value for it. Her Majesty's Government rode off on subjects which had nothing to do with the question. They said, "We are going to have a Commission to inquire into the fixing of rents." It was like cutting a man's head off and then inquiring what way it was done. [Laughter.] It mattered very little to the man in what way his head was taken off. The landlords were asking for compensation for the past, not, for the future. The question had nothing whatever to do with procedure. Then there was another point. Mr. Balfour the other day put forward in the House of Commons proposals he said he would carry out next year, with reference to the Poor Rate and other matters, and they were asked to say whether that would not make up something for the losses they had sustained. How could they say that until they saw the Bill? ["Hear, hear!"] All he could say was that to those who had been ruined it would matter very little what the Poor Rate was when they were in the workhouse. ["Hear, hear!"] It was on their behalf and on behalf of those on the point of ruin that he asked their Lordships and the Government to give earnest and anxious consideration to the proposition he had put before them. ["Hear, hear!"]

VISCOUNT CLIFDEN

said he was sorry to disagree with anything the noble Lord had said. Everything the noble Lord had said pointed to this, that he now knew he had made a mistake in not dividing. He had had something like 45 years' experience and he never knew a Government that cared 2d. for speeches: but they did care for divisions, particularly if they went against them. ["Hear, hear!"] He would first say to those who so nobly supported them last year, that, he hoped they would not deteriorate from the hitherto good character of Englishmen for being fond of justice. Not one word had been said by the Government to refute the arguments brought forward. His hon. Friends had proved their case up to the hilt so far, and the Government had not attempted to disprove that, gross injustice had been done, from 1881 to 1896. If they thought they were quieting Ireland by their shilly-shallying, wretched, and unjust policy, he would only ask them to read the Irish papers, where they would see the elaborate preparations that were being made for the centenary of the year '98.

VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN

wished to say one or two words in support of the compensation claimed by the noble Lord. It was well known in Ireland that he had always been in favour personally of an inquiry into the case for compensation to Irish landlords. It was perfectly evident that the sense of justice appealed to so ably was not necessarily dead in this country because at this moment the Government did not see their way to deal with the matter; but he hoped he might be allowed to express the wish that the Government might yet see the advisability of saying one word of consolation to their Irish followers who had stood by them in the past, and satisfy them that if they could not meet the wishes of the landlords, they would at least inquire into their grievances as soon as they could, with a view to the amelioration of their condition. Just as their Lordships laid it down last year that if a man's property was taken from him, he was entitled to an account, it might be said that if the Irish landlords could show a just title to the balance at the foot of that account, he was entitled to receive it. ["Hear, hear!"]

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

thought that something more was due from the Government. It was, perhaps, too late to discuss the most unfortunate principles accepted by Parliament in 1881, in spite of every protest that could be made by those who were best acquainted with the subject, and on the assurance of the author of the Measure that if any injustice should be worked by it, compensation would be given. He was very sorry to see so little sympathy from the opposite Benches front those who were parties to the Measure, mid who were in honour bound to fulfil the pledge of the Leader of their Government. He always thought it was unfortunate that a. sweeping Measure of that kind should have been introduced by a septuagenarian statesman whose political life could hardly be expected to be sufficiently prolonged to enable him, to see the outcome of his Measure. One safeguard Mr. Gladstone did introduce in favour of the landlords, but unfortunately withdrew it because the Irish landlords did not at once grasp at it. It was not too late, however, to speak of the machinery of the Act. The real truth was that there did not exist in Ireland in sufficient numbers a class of men whose impartiality and knowledge of land could he trusted, from which to draw the Sub-Commissioners. The result was that among them were many broken-down farmers to whom £800 a year was a dream of plenty which never entered into their wildest calculations. Not only that, in consequence of the very proper rule that num should not be employed in their Own districts, men who might be competent to put a valuation on land with which they were acquainted, were sent, perhaps, from the South of Ireland to judge land in the North, about which they knew about as much as he did of land in the South of France. That was not a satisfactory state of things, especially when it was remembered that their decisions were practically without appeal, for latterly the Commissioners had always affirmed the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners. Therefore the landlords had been handed over to a tribunal from which there was no appeal, and which might or might not be competent to decide the facts with which it had to deal. In a copy of The Irish Farmers' Gazette the scale of prices was given on which Sir R. Griffith's valuation was made in the South of Ireland in 1852, and the figures were brought down to 1895. Sir R. Griffith's valuation was made avowedly on the principle that it was for the purpose of taxation only, and the rents fixed were from 20 to 25 per cent. below the letting value. The tenants, however, knew the value of land better than anybody else, and before 1881 surreptitious sub-letting—which was not unknown now—went on extensively, and the rents which the tenants asked one another varied from 35 to 40 per cent. above Sir R. Griffith's valuation. The prices of agricultural produce—including live stock—upon which Sir R. Griffith made his valuation, were in most cases 10 per cent., in some 15, and in some even 20 per cent. above the prices of 1895. The only exceptions were the present slightly lower prices of wheat and potatoes. But notwithstanding all this, the average rents which were now fixed by the Sub-Commissioners—especially on estates on which the farms had always been let at low rents—were sometimes 5 per cent., sometimes 10, and sometimes 15 per cent. below Sir R. Griffith's valuation. Was this fair or just? He had had practical experience of farming on both sides of the Channel. In England the difficulty in many districts was to let the land; in Ireland the difficulty all over the country was to get it. The attempt had been made to destroy the principle of market value, and to find some other method of ascertaining the proper rent. But market value was a thing one could not change. "Naturam, expellas furca; tamen, usque recurret." On behalf of the Irish landlords he appealed with some confidence to both sides of the House. He reminded noble Lords opposite that they were bound by the pledge given by their own Leader that if injustice were caused, and the value of the landlords' property seriously diminished, redress would be granted by Parliament. To Her Majesty's Government he would say, "To throw your friends to the wolves is a very easy process, no doubt, but it rarely pays in the long run, and it is not a process which can be indefinitely repeated." [Laughter.] It would be very hard if no further assurance were given by the Government with regard to future legislation. What the Lord—Chancellor of Ireland had said was very cold comfort indeed. A word as to the remedies for the grievous straits in which the landlords were. There was the monstrous injustice of the tithe rent-charge, which was never worth more than from 17 to 19 years' purchase, but which was fixed upon the landlords at 22½ years' purchase, and which was kept at that rate, although the value of money had fallen and the interest on Government loans had been reduced. That was one direction in which a remedy for these grievances might be found. Another way would be to advance money to the Irish landlords at a reasonable interest for the purpose of paying off his charges or of buying up the tenant right—the money being advanced on the same terms as those which were enjoyed at present by the tenants. These were not unreasonable proposals, and he thought they might have been received by the Government in a more generous spirit. If the existing state of things were permitted to continue, it would be impossible for any Irish landlord to make improvements; the power of doing good would be taken from him. The control of his estate had already been taken from him, and the power of spending money to good purpose was also being taken from him rapidly. And as to the class, or rather limited portion of a class, to whom the property of the landlords had been transferred by the Act of 1881, were they one whit more loyal, more capable, more energetic, more inclined to spend money in the land than their predecessors? No one could say that they were. On the contrary, it was a matter of public notoriety that the land was not now as well farmed as it used to be, that rents were paid with less regularity than formerly, when they were far higher, and that by degrees all those who had taken an interest in the country, and endeavoured to do their duty, were being squeezed out by the operation of the law and being succeeded by others who were far less able to direct the people into those paths which alone could lead to prosperity. ["Hear, hear!"]

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The MARQUESS Of LANSDOWNE)

I venture to add a few words to the Debate because, after the repeated appeals that have been made to this Bench, it might seem discourteous if no other Member of the Government were to express an opinion upon the discussion. We are in this difficulty. It is conceded on all sides that this House would do well not to take a Division upon the resolutions of the noble Lord. Resolutions of that kind are matters which clearly concern not this but the other House of Parliament. We are, then, in this position, that all that we can contribute is a general expression of sympathy with those who have so forcibly laid before the House the sufferings which owners of land in Ireland have sustained in consequence of the legislation of the last few years. The extent of that suffering has been described with the greatest clearness and cogency by the speakers who have addressed this House. I think there are one or two propositions which they have not only established, but amply established. They have, I think, left us in no doubt that the results of the legislation of 1881 have been widely different from what was expected by the supporters or even by the opponents of that legislation. We may sum up those results by saying that they have had the effect of occasioning a much wider and wore general transfer than was expected of the incidents of ownership from the landlords to the tenants of Ireland. There is another point which has appeared very clearly during this Debate, and that is that the duties which have beets cast upon the Land Commission have proved to be duties of a very different kind from those which we thought we were imposing upon them when the Court of the Land Commission was first established. At that time there was a general belief—and I think a well-founded belief—that the duty of the Land Court would be to reduce the small minority of Irish rents which stood above the general level to the proportions prevailing on the most liberally and generously managed estates in the country. The action of the Court itself clearly pointed to that as being the intention, because in the early days of these proceedings it was only the abnormally high rents that were reduced. But soon after the passing of the Act of 1881 the rent wave of agricultural depression which swept over the whole of the kingdom extended to Ireland also. We may contend that Ireland suffered less than other parts of the kingdom, and I believe that to be the case; but I also believe it to be idle to pretend that Ireland did not suffer from the general fall in prices which took place during the eighties. What was the result of that? The Land Commissioners found themselves called upon to adjust the rental of Ireland to an altogether new condition of things. They found themselves entirely cut away from the old standard of market values, and they had, acting to a great extent upon conjecture as to the future movement of prices, to discover a new standard of valuation for the rental of the agricultural land of Ireland. I agree with the noble Duke who addressed us to-night that Parliament is to blame for having committed to the Commissioners so difficult a task without more precise guidance than was given to them by any of the Acts which we have passed. I noticed that the noble Lord who spoke first tonight, Lord Clonbrock, was very careful to explain that he did not rest his case merely on the reductions of rent, because I think it is quite clear that if the Land Courts are merely doing in Ireland that which economical causes are bringing about in England we have no cause to complain. The allegation of the noble Lords who brought this subject before Parliament is that the practice and procedure of these Courts have been irregular and unjust. It is surely not fair to tax Her Majesty's Government, as we have been taxed this evening, with sitting, with folded hands and doing nothing to meet these complaints. The noble Lords are perfectly aware that we hove agreed to the appointment of a Commission which is to examine and report upon the whole of this question of the practice and procedure and methods of valuation made use of by the Land Courts in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!] I mention that because I think that is conclusive proof that we have not been indifferent to the earnest statements that have from time to time been laid before us by noble Lords from Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Lord, the mover of this Resolution, and other speakers Who followed him, have suggested that the question of compensation is a. distinct question, and that whether the practice and procedure of the Courts be correct or incorrect, a case has been made out for compensating the landlords for the loss which they have sustained. I do not think enough credit has been given to the noble and learned Lord. Lord Ashbourne, for his argument tending to show the immense difficulty of dealing with this question of compensation. I do not think a single one of the speakers who have addressed the House has ventured to recommend to your Lordships that there should be what might be termed direct compensation of the landlords by means of a. grant from the Treasury. We have had, on the contrary, adumbrated a number of proposals for giving what might be called indirect compensation in the way of relief and favourable treatment to the landlords under various heads. What were those suggestions? There was a suggestion that advances might be made to the landlords for the purpose of buying up the tenant-right. I think it is perfectly true, as was stated by Lord Ashbourne, that whereas it has been the clearly indicated policy of Parliament to create in Ireland a class of occupiers who should be also owners of their farms, Parliament has not accepted the policy of encouraging the landlords to buy up the tenant-right and convert the tenants on a large scale into what I suppose would be. tenants at will in the English or Scotch sense of the term. That would be an entirely new departure, and it would be a policy which has not yet, so far as I am aware, been put before Parliament or received any measure of support. [Hear, hear!] Then there is the proposal that loans should be made to the landlords for the purpose of enabling them to pay off charges upon their estates. There, again, is a proposal which obviously would require very close examination indeed. The remedy, if it be one, would most certainly be a very partial remedy and one very irregular in its operation. It would benefit, to begin with only those landlords whose estates happened to be encumbered. You might have two landlords each suffering equally, but one might get relief because he happened to have mortgages upon his property and the other one would get no relief at all. ["Hear, hear!"] There is this further point to be borne in mind—that the remedy would probably fail precisely in those cases where we are most anxious that relief should be given—I mean the cases, to which reference leas been so often made, of small owners with relatively heavy charges on their property and whose margin of income has virtually disappeared from existence. Men in that position would clearly have no security to offer, and I doubt extremely whether, under any circumstances, it would be found possible to make to persons so situated advances of public money which could really be of any service to them. There is one other proposal which has been made, and that is that something should be done in connection with the tithe rent-charge. That is a proposal which has been more than once discussed in this House. I believe I myself once laid it before your Lordships, and I am certainly disposed to say that there is a good deal of force in the argument that the present terms upon which tithe rent-charge can be extinguished might very fairly be reconsidered. ["Hear, hear!"] That is a matter which we understand is to be brought before your Lordships on an early date, and. I have no doubt whatever that the arguments in favour of the step will be most carefully and sympathetically considered. ["Hear, hear!"] I can assure the House that no one feels more than I do that the landlords of Ireland have been very great and very cruel sufferers by the legislation of the last few years, and although I frankly confess that I see no prospect of obtaining for them what I spoke of just now as direct compensation, although I believe it would be an entirely novel thing to remedy the blunders of ill-conceived legislation by grants from the Treasury, I feel no doubt that, so far as the opportunities of the case permit, the representations which the Irish landlords have upon this and other occasions made to Her Majesty's Government will be considered with all the sympathy that the circumstances admit. [Cheers.]

LORD INCHIQUIN

asked leave to withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.