recover the advances as should be put back being settled by an taxpayers impartial tribunal, a tribunal which no well as they could. What about one could pretend was likely to favour the large number of Ponsonby tenants the evicted or any other tenants. He who settled two years ago? Those asked the House whether the attitude tenants agreed to purchase at 19 of the hon. Member for South Hunts years' purchase. The hon. Member, or was not proof of what the Irish Members the committee with which he was identisaid last year-namely, that there was fied had pocketed the money. They no intention on the part of the hon. were all right; they had escaped responMember and those who sat round him sibility, and the British taxpayer had to to accept a voluntary settlement? The look to insolvent men, who, owing to Irish Party would be glad to settle this some occult influence, had been enabled burning question upon a voluntary sys- to borrow a great deal more than the tem, but there must be two parties to a true value of their farms, for the sums voluntary arrangement. Clause 13 advanced. The Member for South was in operation for 12 months or more Hants and the Marquis of Clanricarde [Mr. T.W. RUSSELL: "Six months."], and might find it a very congenial occupathe Irish Party did their best to promote tion to squeeze their rents out of the settlements under it. [Laughter.] He starving Irish tenants, but if the unforheard scornful laughter on the Tory tunate Ponsonby tenants had settled on benches. He would like to know whether terms which they could not fulfil, he any Tory Member gave any money to believed the British taxpayer would be wards settlements under Clause 13. The more soft-hearted than either of those Irish Party out of their Party funds, gentlemen. The hon. Member shrank which, he regretted, were not very from the task of defending the Marquis superabundant at the present moment, of Clanricarde, but the case of that did make such grants. It was impos- landlord had to be dealt with. What sible, however, to get the landlords to was the condition of things on the Clanriagree to terms which the tenants could carde estate? It was now, and had been possibly hope to fulfil. The hon. for ten years, a disgrace to this country. Member also objected to the re-instate- The hon. Member for South Tyrone ment of the evicted tenants because the proposed that a special Bill should be farms were in a state of dilapidation. introduced for the expropriation of Lord [MR. SMITH-BARRY: Because the tenants Clanricarde. But if something were not were insolvent.] Because the tenants legally done this year to settle the queswere insolvent the Purchase Commis- tion of the evicted estates there would sioners could not, the hon. Member said, have to be a special Bill introduced next advance the full price of the farms. year to get rid of the difficulty. He Within two minutes the hon. Member would like to recall to the House the swept away the whole of his own history of the Clanricarde Estate during argument, because he boasted that at the last 15 years, for he noticed that the the present moment on the Ponsonby memories of English Members in conEstate, which was well known to be nection with Irish affairs were extremely under his control, settlements were short. In 1881 he attended a large being arrived at. He abstained from meeting of the tenants of the estate at informing the House as to the Portumna, at which a combination was terms. Did the hon. Member believe formed to demand a reduction of 20 per that the Ponsonby tenants who were cent. in the rent, which was now out were insolvent men? [Mr. moderate demand. Shortly afterwards SMITH-BARRY : 66 Yes."] He believed he received word from the estate that they were insolvent men, and yet he had the combination had broken down and not hesitated to be a party to settlements that the tenants were paying their rents. based on what he (Mr. Dillon) called He recollected very well being taunted excessive prices. By his influence the in the House with the defeat he and his hon. Gentleman had induced the Purchase friends had suffered on the Clanricarde Commissioners to advance the money of estate. He was accustomed to defeats the British taxpayers to insolvent men. in Ireland, but they always turned up The hon. Member was quite willing to again and won something in the long pocket the money and let the British run. During the five years which a very better purpose could such money be devoted? He had been willing-and this was a large concession for the Nationalist Members to make that the prices of the evicted farms should be settled by a Commission appointed by a Unionist Government. In his judgment it would have been to the material interest of the landlords to have met the advances of the Nationalist Members in a reasonable spirit. But it was the policy and purpose of the landlords to have vengeance on the evicted tenants--to persecute and drive absolutely desperate by starvation the men who, in the opinion of fourfifths of the Irish people, had been the means of bringing about not only the present Land Bill, but the Land Act of 1891. Was it reasonable or fair, or in accordance with human nature, to expect that the masses of the Irish people would forget the men who, in their judgment, had been the means of getting the present Land Bill and the Land Bill of 1887 passed, or that they should calmly consent to see these men treated as insolvent tenants and left to starvation or the workhouse? They would not consent to any such thing, and they would regard those who opposed so moderate a clause as that in the Bill, which was directed to the case of the evicted tenants, as showing a cruel and vindictive spirit, whilst they were also taking upon their shoulders a serious and terrible responsibility. Turning to the main body of the Bill, he should like to say a few words on the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who had done a great deal of service to the Irish tenants on the Land Acts Committee. With many portions of the hon. Member's able speech he heartily agreed, but there were one or two points on which he strongly differed from him. The hon. Member, while cordially agreeing with the general propositions of the Bill, seemed to think that, if anything, it went a little too far in the direction of the tenants. He totally differed from the hon. Gentleman in that respect, and he would call his attention to a meeting followed the break-up of the tenants' He had agreed that there should be combination on the Clanricarde estate public money voted to smooth the transwhich he formed in 1881 there were no action. Yes, Irish money, and to what public meetings, and there was no agitation on the estate, but during those years 11 men-including two agents of the estate- were murdered in the neighbourhood of Loughrea, and no one was ever brought to justice for the crimes. That was the result of the breaking-up of the tenants' combination of 1881; that was the result of the defeat with which he and his friends had been so often taunted. In 1886, at the earnest request of the Woodford Tenants' Defence Association, which had been formed on the estate in the preceding year, he once more went down to the estate, with considerable doubt and anxiety he confessed, and started the Plan of Campaign. What was the result? From the day the Plan of Campaign was started down to the present time no considerable outrage had been committed in the whole of South Galway. During the past three years, under the administration of the present Chief Secretary, Ireland had been reduced without coercion to a state of peace, unexampled for the past 50 years, although at the beginning of that régime the adjournment of the House was moved almost every week by Members of the Unionist Party to warn the country of the awful state of things which would prevail in Ireland if coercion were abandoned. But if Ireland was peaceable now owing to the absence of coercion and the hope in the hearts of the people that justice would be done them, that was no reason why the hon. Member for South Hants should sneer at the evicted tenants and at their sufferings, which during the last year had been cruel beyond the power of language to describe. These people were human beings. Were they to be ground into powder? If crime and outrage were again to follow discontent, the responsibility would lie on the shoulders of the hon. Member for South Hunts and men like him who turned a deaf ear to just demands, unless those demands were enforced by agitation and tumult. He had endeavoured honestly and earnestly to settle the evicted tenants' question in a way that would be reasonable. He of the constituents of the hon. Member had been willing, though a man of strong views on the subject, to make large concessions and to meet the landlords half-way. Mr. Dillon. for West Down, held at Banbridge on Monday last, and which was typical of many meetings which had taken place amongst the Unionist farmers of Ulster | That clearly demonstrated that the within the last few months. The Mem- Unionist farmers of Ulster-for whom for the West Down Division was in- only the hon. Member for South Tyrone vited to be present, but he wrote excus- and the hon. Member for South Derry ing himself on account of business. The could speak in that House-considered meeting was attended by a number of the present Land Bill a most moderate Presbyterian and Church of Ireland Bill, and one which, in some particulars, Ministers, and from the names it was required amendment in the direction of evident that it was in no sense a the protection of the farmers' interest. Nationalist meeting. One of the Reso- He agreed with that view. The Bill lutions passed was thiswas a great improvement on its prede "That this meeting of West Down electors Cessors, and this was no doubt due to desires to thank Mr. John Morley for the attempt to embody in legislation the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Irish Land Laws, and approves generally of the Bill as an instalment of the just claims of the Irish tenants; that we call upon all Irish representatives, irrespective of their political opinions, and upon our representative, Lord Arthur Hill, in particular, to support the Bill as it now stands, with such amendments as are required ot protect the interests of the farmer." the fact that, while in the drafting of all previous measures the opinion of the representatives of the Irish farmers was totally ignored, in this instance the Chief Secretary had, upon the Select Committee on this subject of land legislation, a fair representation of those who spoke on behalf of the Irish farmers, to whose views he listened, and by which he was, no doubt, somewhat These were the Unionists of Ulster who influenced. Some Conservative Memhad been quoted over and over again as bers seemed to think that it was so loyal men who would not think of doing utterly revolutionary and outrageous anything dishonest. They were not for the Chief Secretary to adopt such a ignorant southern and western farmers, course that this alone was sufficient to but educated Ulster Loyalists who had stamp his proposals with condemnation. studied the Bill and considered it to be It had come to be considered an outrage an instalment of their rights. He could in some quarters if Irish Members were tell hon. Members from Ulster that this allowed to express their views upon a would be a serious question to them in Bill before it was drafted. He gladly the autumn if they did not obey the recognised that the Chief Secretary, by demands of their constituents. Did any the Committee of last year, did give man in the House suppose the hon. fair weight and consideration to the Member for North Armagh would opinions of those who were sent by calmly see the Bill pass the Second the Irish tenantry to represent them in Reading if it were not for Resolutions of that House. For that reason the right this kind? Some hon. Members had hon. Gentleman had produced a Bill spoken in very violent language of the utter absurdity and incomprehensibility of the tenant's interest as apart from his improvements being taken into consideration as distinct from a fair rent. Here was a Resolution passed at the same meeting : which was vastly superior to its prede- "Inasmuch as it has been proved that in the administration of the Act of 1881 there was on the part of the Land Commission neither a common understanding of the law nor anything approaching to uniformity of practice, we consider it essential in the framing of any fresh now touch on one or two points upon land law to clearly indicate the basis upon which he differed from the hon. Memwhich a fair rent may be determined, having ber for South Tyrone. One of these regard to the tenant's interest in his holding, was the occupation interest. The hon. the cost of production and yield, and the Member seemed inclined to throw market value of the produce." discredit on the occupation interest, The Resolution went on to declare that as an element for fixing the fair rent, improvements made previous to the year and he said that he was willing to 1850 must be allowed to the tenant. throw that element overboard, and he asked that it should, at all events, be that a large section of the Commissioners made perfectly clear what was meant by were pursuing one course, while others the occupation interest. It was very were pursuing another and different difficult to convey to a body of English- course. This was a question of law. men and Scotchmen-perhaps Welshmen The first thing which an independent would understand it better-what was person, who might be sent by a humane meant by "occupation interest." It and considerate landlord to value a meant, in his judgment, that the Irish property, would do, would be to ascertenants held their land, not under con- tain the value to be charged on any intracts to which they never assented, come of the tenancy if the land were in but by old and immemorial custom, and the landlord's hands. Then, according that there exists in the Irish tenant an to Judge Neligan and Mr. Doyle, that estate in a form similar to what the land- would be the fair rent. But Mr. M'Afee lord possesses. The hon. Member for South and others said that they fixed the rent, Tyrone said that he fully recognised that in making a considerable reduction in refixing a fair rent the occupying tenant spect of the fact that the farm was in should get a lower rent fixed than a occupation of a tenant, and they made stranger coming in as a tenant. But that reduction before fixing the amount that was exactly what was meant by of the improvements. Was that a right 'occupation interest." It was, no doubt, condition for the law of the land to be an entirely unknown principle to an in? Several of the witnesses were asked, English landlord that a sitting tenant for how much they would value for fair should be charged a lower rent because rent a farm which was in occupation, to he was a sitting tenant as contradis- the tenant in occupation, less than to a tinguished from another tenant coming new tenant. Mr. M'Afee stated that into the farm. This was a very impor- the percentage was considerable, although tant and burning point in relation to this he did not mention the exact rate. Bill, and he would like to direct the A very remarkable thing was this-that attention of the House to the course of the representatives of the landlords some evidence which had been given on brought up as a witness to support their the subject. It was perfectly true, as cause Mr. Toler Garney, a well-known the Member for South Tyrone said, that agent in the King's County, and, he two or three of the witnesses who had been must add, one who had anything but a examined—Judge Neligan, of Cork, and savoury reputation. He was brought Mr. Doyle in particular-had stated that up because he was looked upon as they knew of no such thing as an "occu- strong man, and yet he declared in his pation interest," and that they were in evidence that he would not charge the the habit of fixing a fair rent at a figure same to a sitting as to an incoming which a solvent tenant, taking one year tenant. In view of this great discrepwith another, ought to be able to pay ancy in the administration of the law in for the farm. But that was the very Ireland, were they to be told that the reason why some definition must be laid law was to be silent on this subject and down by law to drive the Commissioners no notice taken of it? The hon. Member in the future, and bring them into har- for South Tyrone asked, "what do you mony. Several sub-Commissioners gave mean: by the occupancy interest? They evidence directly the reverse of that did not mean-nobody outside a lunatic given by Judge Neligan and Mr. Doyle. asylum would suggest that the occuMr. M'Afee, one of the most able of pancy interest was to be estimated by them, said that he always made a the saleable right of the tenant. considerable reduction in favour of a was a preposterous suggestion. sitting tenant, simply because he was a sitting tenant, and that, in addition to any allowance which he made for improvements. Mr. M'Afee's evidence was supported by four or five sub-Commissioners of great experience; and the evidence of all these was directly contrary to the evidence of Judge Neligan and Mr. Doyle. Therefore it appeared Mr. Dillon. a That occupancy interest was a well understood thing in Ireland; it meant the difference between the rent which would be fixed on a sitting tenant who had been, either through himself or his predecessors in title, in possession of the farm from time immemorial, and the rent which might be fairly fixed on an incoming tenant if the farm were in the hands of the landlord. That was the Irish tenants, he hoped the Irish NaOccupancy interest. He contended that tionalist Party would be able to carry it was quite as easy to estimate that in- his able support throughout the discusterest as the fair rent. He therefore sions on this Bill. The reason why asserted that there was in the evidence they wanted a new sub-section was exthe strongest possible proof that the plained out of the hon. Member's own Occupancy interest was a reality, and mouth. An occupying tenant got a conthat in a great number of cases-he sideration as against an incoming tenant should say more than half-which had -that was to say, he got his rent fixed been settled under the Land Acts it had at a lower figure because he was a sitting been taken away from the tenant by tenant, and for no other reason. Yes; those who had misunderstood the law. he got it from Mr. M'Apee and from The hon. Member for South Tyrone several other Commissioners, but not made one very great mistake in his from Judge Neligan and Mr. Doyle, speech. He said he was inclined to and he wanted a definition because he minimise this question of the occupancy wished the practice of Mr. M'Apee to interest and he added *MR. T. W. RUSSELL denied that he minimised the occupancy interest, but he certainly minimised the question of the increased letting value; and he declared that he agreed with what the right hon. Member for Midlothian said in 1881 on the subject of the occupancy interest. MR. DILLON: But did not the hon. Member say that a sitting tenant was to get consideration as against an incoming tenant? *MR. T. W. RUSSELL said, he asked the Chief Secretary to say what he really meant by the occupation interest, and he put several alternatives to him. He could assure the hon. Member that the sum and substance of his argument about the occupation interest was this-that it was simply an asset conferred on the tenant by Act of Parliament which he could sell. But he denied that it had the slightest relation to the fixing of a fair rent. MR. DILLON replied that his recollection of the speech of the hon. Gentle man was that he said: : "If you mean by the occupation interest that a sitting tenant is to get consideration as contradistinguished from an incoming tenant, then I am heartily with you." be laid down as the practice of the Land Court. He denied that this question of the occupancy interest was first introduced to the committee by Judge Bewley. When he gave evidence Judge Bewley certainly said most emphatically and it was an agreeable surprise to the friends of the tenants on the Committee that the law as now administered recognised the occupation interest, and, lest there should be any doubt about it, he defined this as an interest which the tenants had in the soil quite irrespective of any improvements they had made, adding that that was recognised by the law in Ireland. But it appeared over and over again in the Blue Book that legal sub-Commissioners and County Court Judges had never heard of such a thing, and never gave tenants the benefit of it. In these circumstances a case was made out beyond all question for some definition in order to secure to the tenants in future the enjoyment of that which Judge Bewley said was at present the law of the land. In urging for a definition of the law which secured the interest of the tenant they were not advocating any revolutionary measure or innovation; they were simply asking that the law, as laid down by the head of the Land Com *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I said he gets mission and by one of the Judges of the it now. That is MR. DILLON: Quite so. exactly my point. He gets it now. *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Then, why do you want a new sub-section ? MR. DILLON said, he could answer the hon. Gentleman, for, recognising that the hon. Member had been so useful on the Land Act Committee to the VOL. XXXII. [FOURTH SERIES.] Court of Appeal in Ireland, should be distinctly set forth in the Act, so that there might be no mistake about it. In connection with improvements the hon. Member for South Tyrone spoke of the increased letting value. In his judgment the term "unearned increment was a very incorrect and misleading one The proper term for this particular point in 2 R |