ments, are of opinion that, in any measure relating to the tenure and improvement of land in Ireland, it is expedient to maintain the principle affirmed by the Act of 1860-namely, that compensation to tenants should be secured in respect of those improvements only which are made with the consent of the landlord, that, in the opinion of this House, the provisions as to the improvement of land in Ireland contained in the measure of Her Majesty's Government would operate injuriously on the position of holders of small farms in that country," to judge, I think that under the circum- | pensation for outlay made in permanent improvestances of the times they acted wisely in giving no engagement to meet an unlimited amount of discount. That, I believe to be the sole foundation for the rumours which are abroad. I think the explanation I have given is one which the House will be glad to receive, and I believe that the authentic figures which I have stated to the House will do more than any mere verbal statement to explain the liberal, yet judicious manner in which the operations of the Bank of England are conducted at critical periods. I hope the effect of such communications will be that all that hereafter transpires with respect to the state of the Bank will tend not to disturb but further to compose the public mind. THE CATTLE PLAGUE IN IRELAND. QUESTION. MR. HERBERT said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he has been informed that the Cattle Plague had been introduced into Ireland by a drover from England; and, if so, whether the Government is prepared to forbid English drovers entering Ireland during the continuance of the plague in this country? said, he should have been glad if he could have found it consistent with his duty to have postponed his remarks upon the measure until the Bill had reached a further stage. He was also unwilling that any one should think that he was opposed to the consideration of any measure intended to secure fair and just compensation to tenants for permanent improvements upon the land. But he thought that the present Bill contained so many new principles, subversive of the rights of property, and dangerous to the interests of the tenants themselves, that he had felt it to be his duty on that occasion to offer the Resolu⚫ tion of which he had given notice to the consideration of the House. The provisions of this Bill were altogether new, so far as that House was concerned. He did not propose to allude, except in the most cursory manner, to the first and second parts of the Bill, though they contained provisions of an important nature, and alterations of the present law which required the careful consideration of the House; but they were more in the way of the present law, and did not contain any new principle; he should therefore confine the principal portion of his observations to the other parts of the Bill. All former measures for giving tenants compensation that had been presented to the House, including the Bill of 1860, had been based upon the principle that it should be necessary that notice should be given in the first instance to the landlord what improvements it was proposed to make. The Act of 1860 went farther, for it provided that besides notice to the landlord, his consent must be obtained to the improvements in order to give the tenant a right to compensation. That principle had been entirely departed from in the Bill now before the House; for the 28th clause enabled the tenant to make any improvement he pleased, at any period of his tenancy, without any notice whatever to his landlord, and on the im"That this House, though desirous of sim-provements being certified according to the plifying the method of securing to tenants com provisions of this Bill to claim compensation MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, he was sorry that he could afford the House no further information respecting the cattle plague in Ireland. He had, however, learnt, and the news was satisfactory as far it went, from a gentleman who had left the neighbourhood where the disease broke out, on the previous day, that no additional case had occurred. The hon. Gentleman might be sure that the Government would put in force the full powers granted to them by law, but he could not for the moment give any definite answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman. TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL—[BILL 130.] (Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.) LORD NAAS, in moving the Amendment of which he had given notice for them at any period within thirty-one | question had much to do with emigrayears. Before he proceeded to consider tion from Ireland. It was true small the provisions of the Bill in detail, he wished to address himself to the reasons that had been put forward by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House as to the necessity for this description of legislation. He did not deny that the principle of compensation for permanent improvements was just, and that if it could be carried out without infringing on the rights of property, this House ought to endeavour to do so to the fullest extent. But he was entirely at issue with hon. Members on both sides of the House as to the causes which were stated to have led to the necessity of this particular description of legislation. It had been repeatedly argued that the present state of disaffection in Ireland, the emigration from that country, and the dicinclination of tenants to improve their holdings, were caused by what was called the state of the land question in that country. He entirely dissented from that proposition, because if it were attributable to that, would not the majority of the men who, he was sorry to say, were engaged in the Fenian conspiracy be found amongst the agricultural classes? But so far from that, as it was stated the other night in another place, out of the prisoners who had been arrested under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in the South of Ireland two only could be said to belong in any way to the agricultural class. So that although it was broadly stated that the land question was at the root of the disaffection in Ireland, they found that ninety-nine out of every 100 persons apprehended for treasonable practices were persons connected with trade and commercial operations. Although there was an uneasy feeling to a certain extent amongst the small holders, he was able to state that they took very little interest individually in the tenant-right movement. They had, however, got into their heads that tenant-right meant reduction of rent and fixity of tenure. That was the reason why the movement had become to a certain extent popular. Few Members of that House lived more with the farming class of Ireland than he did; and when he had discussed this question with them-as he had done over and over again-he found that they took but little interest in the matter other than that they would be glad to get their farms as cheap as they could. Then, he was under the impression that much misapprehension existed with regard to emigration. He did not believe that the land holdings in Ireland had diminished; but they had not diminished so rapidly as was expected, and he knew of no general desire on the part of holders of either large or small farms to emigrate; on the contrary, he had found that whenever a farm became vacant half-a-dozen applicants immediately came forward desiring to take it, and very often at an increased rent. It was untrue, then, that people were in the habit of throwing up their farms in order to emigrate to America. It was the sons and daughters of the occupiers of land who went abroad, and they did so because they saw that, owing to the continual subdivision of land in their own country, little chance of their prospering existed. Precisely the same thing perforce existed in every agricultural community where subdivision of land was not allowed and practised to an enormous extent. What was going on in every agricultural parish in England? Why, the sons and daughters of the occupiers of land went into the neighbouring manufacturing towns to seek that employment which they could not obtain in their own villages, if, indeed, they also did not emigrate to seek their fortunes. Emigration and dispersion went on, in his opinion, in England quite as largely as in Ireland; and such a process was required, because of the continued increase of the population. The only remedy for such a state of things was to give facilities and offer inducements for the subdivision of land. A friend of his had inquired of an Irishman whether he had any Fenians in his neighbourhood? The answer was that there were some, because the landlords would not permit the farmers to subdivide the land, or to sublet their holdings to their sons. That incident showed what was meant by those who held an extreme view, and said the land question was at the root of the matter. He was of opinion that if such a great desire existed on the part of the tenants to spend their savings in improving their farms, the House would have become acquainted with instances where applications to do so had been refused. It was puerile to say that such applications were not made because it would be hopeless to make them. Could any one believe that if a tenant applied to his landlord for permission to lay out his savings on the farm which he held, that the landlord would answer No, I reject your money; it shall not be laid out on my property; it would enrich you and me at the same time, but I object to your improving my land! It had been said that no advantage had been taken of the Bill of 1860. He admitted this to be true; but the class of people to whom it was intended to apply could not easily be persuaded or informed on such a subject as this. He believed, however, that that Bill could be rendered very serviceable. He would go further and say that it was passed after a great deal of consideration; but he believed it might be very much improved. The provisions of the Bill might be simplified, and that would form a subject for very serious consideration. He held that any measure which would have the effect of oiling the machinery of the Bill of 1860, whereby a tenant might have the power to secure compensation for bond fide improvements made by him with his landlord's consent, should not only be carefully considered in that House, but would receive the almost unanimous approval of the people of Ireland. It was further said that the absence of leases throughout a great part of Ireland operated against any outlay by the tenant upon the land. This was to a certain extent true, but not true altogether. A great portion of the land of the country was at present held by tenants upon long leases, extending over three lives-the estate with which he was connected was held by a large number of leases-and he would ask any gentleman acquainted with the circumstances of Ireland whether from his knowledge he could see that there was greater disposition on the part of occupiers of lands held under long leases to improve them than was manifested by tenants-at-will. He maintained that a traveller through the country, if he were to make inquiries at the farms most wretchedly kept, would frequently find that they were held for the longest terms. This was a fact which was well known. Any one acquainted with the West and South of Ireland knew that the disinclination on the part of the tenants to make improvements was not dependent on the insecurity attending the holding of their lands. But there was more in this demand for what was called "tenant compensation" than met the eye. This demand had been made the pretext for endeavouring to obtain fixity of tenure at a low rent and irremovability. Those were the real objects, not of the farming class in Ireland, but of the persons who directed the movement and wrote and spoke about it. The statements of the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue) would be the VOL. CLXXXIII. [THIRD SERIES.] best evidence he could offer on this point. The opinions of that hon. Gentleman were well known, for, having studied the question deeply, he had spoken and written upon it repeatedly, and with great eloquence and ability, and the hon. Gentleman was not a man to conceal his sentiments on any subject. On the 22nd of March, when anticipating some such Bill as that now before the House, he wrote a letter to the Chairman of the National Association, in which he said "A Bill that does not give security of tenure is worth no more than the value of the paper upon which it is written. Hitherto it has been held that security of tenure can only be attained by an enactment such as I have suggested in my letter to Mr. M'Swiney, or by making the granting of leases compulsory, or by a compensation Bill of a retrospective character, which would give the landlords as would render eviction, if not impostenants such claims for compensation upon their sible, at all events very difficult, and thus indirectly establish the right of the occupier to dwell upon the soil." But it had been said that the different circumstances of Ireland justified this legislation. Well, he admitted that for a great number of years there had been, and that there was still, a very great difference in the mode in which the land was held in Ireland from that in which it was held in England, but a rapid change was taking place in that respect. Anybody who knew the country must be aware that during the last twenty-five years a great desire had been manifested to assimilate the mode of dealing with Irish estates to the mode in which English landlords dealt with theirs. Such a change would, of course, occupy some years before it could operate throughout the country, but that such a change was going on no one could doubt. This desire on the part of the Irish landlords had been the cause of almost all the substantial improvements that had been effected during the past twenty years. The terms on which a tenant held his property in England were tangible, and they were known; but that was not the case in Ireland. He maintained that between every landlord and tenant there was an implied compact that the latter should treat the property in a proper manner, and continue upon it a course of such good husbandry as was in accordance with the ordinary custom of the country, and that therefore good husbandry was no ground for compensation. Good husbandry was not an improvement, but the fulfilment of a duty on the part of the tenant towards the landlord, and a tenant had no right to 2 M sot up compensation for it. Now, what gard to the property of landlords. Under had the landlords in Ireland done? The this Bill tenants, withont any previous inright hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chichester vestigation showing that the improvements Fortescue) the other night made a very were capable of being made, or that if striking statement as to what had been made they would be proper or suitable to done with assistance during the last fifteen the holding, were to be allowed to charge years. He stated that the charge for im- the property of their landlords with the provements under the Land Improvement sum which had been expended, without any Act amounted to upwards of £2,000,000, means of ascertaining that such expendiand he believed at this moment there was ture was proper and just. The mode in hardly a shilling in arrear upon the re- which the Bill would work could be tested payment of the instalments. That demon- by a few illustrations. Suppose a tenant strated the amount of improvement that reclaimed a small portion of a bog, but iu was going on. If, however, the present such a way as not to be beneficial to the Bill were to be passed into law it was pro- land or to himself; thirty-five years afterbable that that improvement would be wards, if the owner proposed to resume ocstopped, owing to the great want of confi-cupation, the tenant would be entitled to dence which would prevail throughout the claim compensation, when, perhaps, every country. He could conceive of nothing witness and every person at all cognizant more likely to scare away capital from the of the original transaction might have died country than the present Bill, which would or gone out of the country. Suppose, reverse the system that had existed in the again, that two sets of reclamations were country for so many years. Another effect made-one upon the side of a mountain to of the Bill would be to lower the value of which access was difficult, where the land property in Ireland. It appeared to him was sterile and the climate bad, and a that those parts of the Bill now before the number of years must intervene before the House which related to the rights of land- improvement could prove remunerative; lords to charge their properties were re- the other a case where the reclamation was pugnant to each other, which, he con- easy, the land fertile, and the man would tended, showed how carelessly and impru- be rewarded for his outlay by the first dently it had been framed. He would re- crop of rape that the land produced. mind the House of what a man had to go How was the same law of compensation to through if he applied to the Government be applied in those two cases? When a for a loan for the improvement of his land. house was built upon a farm which might He had notices to publish in the news- suit the tenant himself, but might be most papers and to give to the parties even re- unsuitable for the purposes of the landmotely interested, and the greatest care lord, or those of the adjacent holdings, was taken by the Government that every under this Bill the landlord could not deal shilling of the money granted was properly with the farm until he had paid the tenant expended in the particular improvement the value of the house, built perhaps thirtyfor which it was destined, and that the five years before, and to the erection of improvement was made in the best possible which he had been no party whatever. And manner. The proprietor had first to give there were many cases where the existence notice of his intention to improve, then a of a house upon a farm, instead of being preliminary inquiry was obliged to be held an advantage, was a detriment. In the upon the spot, plans and specifications case of drainage, again. This was at the were then required to be submitted, toge- root of all agricultural improvement, esther with a certificate of the suitableness pecially in Ireland; but, unless properly of the improvement to the character of done, it might be absolutely detrimental the holding; the money, moreover, could to the land itself. Thorough drainage only be issued in instalments, and no in- could not be carried out by ignorant men, stalment could be paid unless the certificate or men with only small holdings. But, of the inspector showed that the previous according to this Bill, if a man drained in instalments had been laid out upon the the most slovenly and inappropriate waywork. Let the House contrast that state- if he ran his drains across instead of down ment, every stage of which the Govern- hill, and neglected to make a proper outfall ment deemed absolutely necessary to pro-if, in fact, the land was in any way retect the advances made by them upon the security of lands, with the course which the Government proposed to take with re moved to make a drain, he had a right at any time within thirty years to come down upon the landlord and make him pay for was it, he asked, a position in which the House wished to place any proprietor? A landlord, in place of holding out inducements to his tenantry to improve the land, would be actually obliged, in his own defence, and to protect his successors, to specify in the contract between the tenant and himself the particular improvements which a tenant was not to make an extraordinary way, certainly, of promoting the general improvement of the country. The Attorney General said, " Oh, landlords are not so hard-hearted; it is impossible to suppose that they would in general enforce any such system of coutract. He was happy to believe that Irish landlords were not hard-hearted; but this was a matter, not of feeling, but of business. The question was, whether proprietors of estates should permit these to be subjected hereafter to indefinite and vague charges, the extent of which they did not know, and were ignorant of the very time when these were to be enforced. If this Bill passed into law, though landlords might have been on the most kindly relations with their tenants, in defence of themselves and of their children, they must import the most rigid terms into every contract. There was another proposition in this Bill of a wholly novel cha this inferior and badly-done work. What That clause, when read, created great as- It was that the amount of com pensation to be given to the tenant was to be calculated not on the outlay made by him, but on the increased letting value of the farm. In the first place, he thought that mode of valuation impossible; and, in the next, if it were possible, it would be unfair. It was impossible because this ques. tion was to be decided by a valuator. The valuator would be called in, and on proceeding to value an improvement made eighteen or twenty years before he would ask what was the letting value at the time the improvement was made. And how could that be ascertained? The rent would be no criterion, because the farm might have been let too high, or it might have been let too low. There would be no docu. mentary evidence, and the valuator would be obliged to depend upon the word of the tenant. Would that be a satisfactory mode of deciding the value of land at some particular date, eighteen or twenty years before? It would be better to let the landlord and the tenant decide the matter by a toss up, than to leave it in such a state as that. But the principle was unfair. He maintained, and the law had always maintained, that the increased let |