could be obtained for a public urpose | Bill, but he had actually pushed them except by a heavy payment to thptenant back. He would take the case of two There men who went into Court under the Bill of 1881, one of whom, having had a fair rent fixed, was still a tenant farmer, and the other of whom had bought his for the surrender of his interest. was not a tenant in all the four provinces of Ireland who had not waiting at his door men eager to take his farm at from 10 to 30 years' purchase of the rent holding on the basis of the fair rent. Then again, looking at the bank-balances To the former man the Chief Secretary in Ireland, and especially at the tenants' now said that his rent had been assessed banks, last week they reached the highest on a wrong basis; that there had been point which had ever been touched in a miscarriage of law; and that he was the history of Ireland. They were abso- to receive a much larger share in the lutely higher by several millions than in produce of the soil than formerly, the years 1880 and 1881. Could any besides having his term shortened. But English or Scotch Member point to a the other man, who had become a tenants' bank in which the balances peasant proprietor, and whose rent had showed the same satisfactory result? been fixed on exactly the same basis By representing men, who were prosper- before he purchased, was to get ing so well, and bound to a bargain no advantage or bonus whatever. which they could at any moment get Literally, by this Bill, the peasant proa large sum for surrendering, as prietor would be at a disadvantage in tyrannically oppressed and unable to selling stock in the market when com carry out necessary improvements, pared with the tenant farmer. The the Chief Secretary found justifica- tenant farmer would be able to sell stock tion for proposing the most drastic for less. Surely the peasant proprietor changes which had ever been proposed in would reason this with himself :--regard to Irish land. To give the tenant not only every improvement, but every rise in its value, to give him the presumption that all improvements were his, and the right to wipe out his bargain where he contracted not to claim his improvements, all this was to give him an I reckon that the tenant farmer would enormous bonus; and when at the same go down to his house justified rather time it was remembered that the landlord than the proprietor. If the Home was limited in his rent, though the tenant Secretary, who had offered to wager was not limited in his tenant-right, it would be evident that the estimate of the reduction at 60 or 70 per cent. was rather under the mark. The Bill was not only drastic, but it did not touch some of the most important points to be dealt with. Mr. Forster, in speaking on the Bill of 1881, stated on behalf of the Government that the main object which the Government had in view was not merely a reform of the land tenure, but an increase in the number of peasant but they could not make the whole of too glad to see any tenant prosperous, proprietors, and the relief of overcrowded agriculture in Ireland prosperous if they districts. The Chief Secretary had not benefited the sitting tenant at the only not advanced those objects by this expense of those who had to come after "Would I were as other men, especially as this tenant farmer. Here is this man who pays that when convenient, while I pay my instalno rates, pays a less rent than I, and only pays ments with regularity, even if I have to fast two days a week in order to do it and to pay rates on all that I possess." 100 to one against the passing of this him. What they did for the sitting portion of the Bill had never been brought tenant was all very well, but it was only to the particular notice of the Chanan umbrella, and could never be a real cellor of the Exchequer. There was roof to the land question. The Chief another point. Each Committee and Secretary asked them to include each Commission which had sat had future tenants in the Bill. A great agreed in regretting the indefinite nature objection to the machinery of the of the instructions given to the subMeasure was that it would increase Commissioners. What progress had been litigation. A great object of the Act of made in getting a fair rent defined? In 1881 was that a certain number of Ireland no attempt had been made to cases should be settled by agreement. define fair rent. Did the Government 300,000 tenants had had their rents intend to turn 200 or 300 gentlemen fixed already, and upwards of 100,000 of loose in Ireland to endeavour by their these would be eligible to come into Court own means to arrive at a fair rent? Why at once. They also invited into Court could not Parliament set to work to lay all future tenants who had held for five down, not in a mathematical way, years, and the number of such was definite rules for the guidance of the reckoned by the Chief Secretary at sub-Commissioners? They were going several thousands a year. They also to put upon two or three hundred gave an entry into Court to all the gentlemen, some of whom must necesmen holding pasture farms of between sarily be novices, a duty the High Court £50 and £200 rent; men of substance of Parliament would not undertake. -men paying just as large rents as One of the best of them, a tenant's man, many of the inhabitants of Belgrave a man, at least, who showed no favour to Square, and many of them quite as the landlord, told the Committee it was capable of making a contract with their ridiculous to expect him to value a farm landlords as the Belgrave Square tenants on the same principles as the man who They also gave permission to go valued the next farm. No two men into Court to practically all the men valued in the same way. In the early who farmed townparks or demesne land. days, there was one sure standard to How were they going to deal with this guide the sub-Commissioners--the stan glut in the land market? If litigation dard of the competition value. But that has been slow and costly hitherto, how had been destroyed, and the only thing did they mean to quicken it and make it set up in its place to guide the subless costly in the future? He supposed Commissioners was what the Chief they would have to appoint 100 or 120 Secretary had called "the special circumnew Commissioners, and he did not stances," which was a phrase of a highly believe that number of competent sub- speculative character. As to the mode Commissioners was to be found in Ire- of hearing applications to have fair rents land. They had to get men who had fixed, there was to be no improvement not only a knowledge of land, but men on the machinery provided by the Act who were also experienced in the weigh of 1880, which had led to an enormous ing of evidence. He had not the least consumption of landlords and tenants doubt hon. Members below the gangway money in litigation as well as of the would produce a numerous list; but he money of the nation. At present there was quite certain that nobody would were two processes- -a hearing before the pity the Chief Secretary more than the sub-Commission and an Appeal to the Chief Secretary himself if he had to Chief Commission. But as if those proappoint 100 or 120 new Commissioners, cesses were not sufficiently costly, the and he was equally certain that that Chief Secretary now proposed that the Mr. Brodrick. were. Chief Commissioner should send down of cases of tenants in the south and west two valuers to the farm, and that there of Ireland who had allowed their farms should be a sub-Commission of four. But absolutely to run out; who sold their if the sub-Commissioners were not unani- interest for three or four years' purchase, mous, there must be a resort again to the and went to America on the money. High Court. The object to aim at was to There was no provision in the Bill to put a make the machinery more rapid and less lien on such tenant; but to the new tenant costly. He would therefore suggest to was left the responsibility of bringing the Chief Secretary whether it would not the land back to a good condition again. be better to have simply two valuers and The only words in the Bill dealing with an appeal from them to the Chief Commis- the subject made it impossible to put the sioner, with a penalty of costs to be en- real value on such a farm. The subforced against the appellant if he failed Commissioners were bound to assess to prove his case. Such a process would the land at what a solvent tenant could be less troublesome and less costly in afford to pay for it, and if the farm were the long run, and would bring the land-greatly deteriorated a solvent tenant lord and tenant closer together. There could obviously afford to pay less in was one most important subject which the condition in which they found it. should be in the Bill, but was not in it. The Bill was silent in regard to those provisions of the Act of 1880 which pressed hardly, though they were not intended to press hardly on the landlord. There was the question of improvements there was no means whatever of compenin connection with English-managed sating the landlord for such deterioraestates. He might be told "De minimis tion. Clause 5, if passed in its present non curat lex," for there were so few of form, would perpetrate a monstrous inthem. justice, for it not only restricted the MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Where are landlord to everything down to the they? If the tenant had improved the land, then they reduced the rent payable to the landlords; but if on the other hand, the tenant had neglected the farm, and so greatly reduced the value of the soil, prairie value, but it carried on the most *MR. BRODRICK said, the Leconfield undesirable system that could be set on estate was one and the Fitzwilliam estate foot in regard to Irish land-namely, another. Lord Leconfield had lost every that of putting the worst proportions of sixpence of his expenditure, amounting an estate on a level with the rest of the to £100,000, in thirty years, for the rents property. On the question of the town had been for years below the level of parks he regretted that they had not 1852, when the expenditure began. If been able to call their evidence, because it had been the case of a tenant the he believed they could have changed House would have heard of it every the view of the Chief Secretary as month, but being only the case of a land- well as that of hon. Members on the lord no attempt was made to meet it in Committee. But the Chief Secretary the Bill. It was just the same in regard was in the position of the reviewer comto the question of deterioration, which mended by Sydney Smith for his imparwas another question seriously affecting the interests of the landlords. Not one word was said by the Chief Secretary on that important point, and there was no provision in the Bill to charge anything against a tenant who left his farm in a dilapidated condition. There were plenty VOL. XXXII. [FOURTH SERIES.] tiality, who never read a book he was going to review. The right hon. Gentleman, in a similar way, showed his impartiality, for he had not heard the evidence on the matter on which he was going to legislate. The question of town parks was a most important one. It was 21 were transferring to the Bill. Now procedure which, at all events, would prevent the cost of litigation? And, above all, would not the Chief Secretary reconsider the right of pre-emption, without which the rent must ultimately be eaten up in the tenant-right? He knew of cases on honest and good estates in which the rents had been reduced 20, 30, 40, and even 50 per cent. in the beginning of the year, and where the tenant-right was sold for between 20 and 30 years' purchase before the end of the year. He would like to see a tenant put to the price at which the goodwill should be sold. He did not know of any arrangement in any other walk of life in which a man might expect to get more than double the value of his improvements when he proceeded to sell. The language which the Chief Secretary had used in reference to Irish landlords was not calculated, in his opinion, to enhance the good feeling with which Debates in (Ireland) Bill. obvious that if a man got agricultural and would fail in its operation. land just outside a town, where there could they not hope, before going was a demand for accommodation land, into Committee, that the right hon. Genat an agricultural rent of £1 or 30s. per tleman, if he could not reconsider his acre, when on the occasion of a fair or contentious proposals, would consider market he could get £1 per night for the how far he would meet the Opposition use of the field, and his tenant-right on the non-contentious proposals? Could would be worth £30 or £40, that they they not have some clause, for example, tenant a value to provide for deteriorations? Could in the land which did not really belong they not have some reconsideration of to him. There was a demand for land outside towns for public purposes; but look at the position in which the land lords of such land were placed by this He would give an instance within his knowledge. A man held a farm at an agricultural rent just outside a town which was spreading. The holding had never been treated as a town park, the tenant professed to be unable to pay the rent fixed, and he certainly had spent no money on improvements. It so happened, however, that his land was the only land available for the purpose of a fair green, which was required, and yet he asked £25 per acre, or £250 for 10 acres, for giving up the tenant-right of land, the rent of which, he alleged, he could not pay. An arbitrator decided that the tenant-right was worth £200, and the landlord had actually to pay this sum as a gift to the tenant, who had expended nothing on improvements. What was the use of talking of tram- this House ought to be conducted, ways and light railways for the smaller towns if such a practice as this were to be perpetuated? The moment they required land for any public purpose near position of landlords and a town they would not only have to pay tenants. In 1881 the cry constantly the landlord for his property in the soil, was that all the power and property of but would have to give a large sum to the country was in the hands of the less the tenant for his tenant-right, although numerous class. But all that was changed. he might have spent nothing on improve- Power had now been transferred into ments. He agreed that if there were the hands of the more numerous class, genuine cases in which land, not accom- and it would not be too much to say that modation land, was treated as such to by successive Acts of Parliament more prevent the tenant getting a fair rent than one-third of the property had been fixed, a stop should be put to such transferred also. The cause of the tena practice, but the limit drawn by ants was represented in this House by the Bill was both artificial and absurd, 80 or 90 gentlemen, many of them of Mr. Brodrick. but he would appeal to the House also to consider the enormous change which had taken place since 1881 in the great ability, who urged everything that would be without their concurrence, and could be said on behalf of the tenants. for partisan reasons by partisan votes, The cause of the landlords, on the other and would create evils which had been hand, had to be set forth by a few gen- clearly foreseen. tlemen-not, he thought, ten in all-who MR. DUNBAR BARTON (Mid were connected in any way with Irish Armagh) reminded the party to which he land. There was no class of individuals belonged that there were about 100,000 so numerous and possessing so large a tenant-farmers in Ireland who supported stake in the country who had so small the Unionist cause. These farmers a representation in this House as the looked to their party to give a fair conIrish landlords. He submitted that that sideration to those provisions of the Bill transference of power transposed the duty in which they were interested, and if of this House. This House sat here to that party was not going to divide on administer justice between all classes of the Second Reading it could take no wiser Her Majesty's subjects. If they chose course. The effect of that course in the to do it, the Government could, by province of Ulster would be to lead a their majority, disregard the views and large number of the tenant farmers to the rights of the class of the Irish support their Members in trying to do landlords. They could even carry this justice to those landlords who had shown Bill if they remained indifferent to themselves willing to do justice to the argument and impervious to criticism. tenants. He firmly believed that the That was not the way in which the tenants desired no injustice to the landbusiness of this House had been con- lords, and that the points in the Bill of ducted in the past. The Chief Secretary which the landlords were most afraid were would find that even in Ireland bad not the points the tenants most desired. principles would not in the long run tell, The cause of these tenants had been preand, depend upon it, the unsound prin- judiced more than anything else by the ciples embodied in this Bill would wild words of some Members below the ultimately find him out if he proceeded Gangway, who went about Ireland saying to perpetuate them in an Act. If they that this Bill was to be a "scorcher" were to disintegrate the existing system, and a death-blow to Irish landlordism. the Government should constitute a fresh Nothing was more calculated to raise one which would have some elements the fears or arouse the opposition of of soundness in it. It was not desir- every fair-minded man in the country able to pass а measure which must than language like that. The farmers drive all capital out of the country. of Ulster did not desire anything in the At a time when good feeling could only nature of a "scorcher; they did not be promoted by residence it was not wish to strike a death-blow at Irish desirable to pass a measure which must landlordism. What they wanted was, banish from Ireland nine-tenths of those to clear up the doubts that had arisen who now joined in local work there. in connection with the Land Acts, and The Opposition had been taunted with to remove technicalities that had crept not dividing on the Second Reading into them. In many respects the Bill of the Bill. They did not divide be- dealt with these matters, and in so far cause there were some points in it which as it did he sympathised with it. He they were willing to concede, and others was glad to hear the Chief Secretary on which they were not prepared to distinctly indicate that he was willing abandon all hope that the Chief Secre- to go in the direction of compromise. tary would meet them. But if the The Bill could never pass without comBill were passed in its present form it promise. Any sensible man must realise |