did not anticipate that the time would be taken up by the Committee on this Bill. them to the House of Commons, but it was | portance connected with Ireland, and he only after a severe struggle that they prevented the driver from taking them to Doctors' Commons, and even when by means of constant directions he brought the cab to the Houses of Parliament, he would insist upon driving past the House of Commons and taking his fare on to the House of Lords. Vote agreed to. House resumed. Resolutions to be reported To-morrow ; HOP TRADE BILL-[BILL 36.] MR. LOCKE thought it would be ex- Remaining clauses agreed to. Bill reported; as amended, to be con (Mr. Huddleston, Sir Brook Bridges, Sir Edward sidered upon Monday next, and to be Dering.) COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." MR. DODSON asked the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced the Bill, whether he could explain what its effect would be upon the retail trade. So far as he (Mr. Dodson) understood the definition of a bag or pocket of hops which it contained, it would apply to any receptacle or package, however small, in which hops were packed. MR. HUDDLESTON said, the interpretation clause referred to hops packed in bags or pockets sent from the grower, producer, or any other person. The objection would be met by omitting the words "or any other person." Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) MR. BAGWELL appealed to the hon. Member to report Progress, to allow the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland to bring in his Bill relative to Landlord and Tenant. MR. HUDDLESTON declined to accede to the request. Clause 1 agreed to. MR. BAGWELL again appealed to the right hon. and learned Member not to proceed further that night, and moved that the Chairman report Progress. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he should support the Motion. The Government had postponed all their Orders to enable his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) to introduce a measure of great public interest and im printed. [Bill 128.] TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL. MR. LEAVE. FIRST READING. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, that in proposing to the House, on the part of the Government, a fresh measure upon the important question of the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, he was quite aware of the great delicacy and difficulty of the subject they had in hand, and he knew very well the ill-success which attempts at such legislation had met with for many years past, although they had been made by men of great ability and earnestness. But although this was the case, he had at least this consolation, that the House during the last twenty years had over and over again recognized the existence in Ireland of evils requiring a remedy, and had admitted its should be found. Those proposals had bounden duty to see that such a remedy been made from time to time by many might be termed the patriarch of the - by one who question he referred to Mr. Sharman Crawford, by Mr. Serjeant Shee, by Mr. Napier for whose authority Gentlemen opposite would, he had no doubt, have the most profound reverence; by his hon. Friend the Member for Cork, and by other Gentlemen. The House, upon these various invitations, had constantly admitted the propriety of considering the subject, and had agreed to important and even courageous measures with respect to it. He had especially in his mind the measures of 1853, which were founded in all their essential provisions upon the Bills of Mr. Napier, who represented the party opposite, eminent and honest men then in power-Bills which were successfully carried through the House, though they eventually failed to pass the other branch of the Legislature. More than that, legislation on that great question was, whatever might be thought of its results, carried through and reduced into the form of an Act of Parliament by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies in 1860. In speaking of that Act which, as was proved by the Committee which was last year presided over by his hon. Friend the Member for Cork, had not been effectual for the purpose intended, he desired to pay a tribute of justice to his right hon. Friend. That Act admitted important principles, in itself a fact of immense importance in a question of that sort. It was large, benevolent, and beneficent in its intentions. It was framed with all the consideration, care, and conscientious knowledge of the subject which distinguished his right hon. Friend in every matter which he touched. We knew, however, by experience-and it was easy to be wise after the event that surrounded as it was by every kind of safeguard and precaution justifiable in a case of exceptional legislation, had turned out to be practically a dead letter. Such was the state of things which had led his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork to move for his Committee last Session, and which, of course, obliged the Government readily to assent to the inquiry. It was, he might add, that state of things which now made it the duty of the Govern ment to bring forward some measure which by simplifying the Act of 1860 should carry out the just and wise intentions which that Act had in view, and give motion and vitality to its enactments. It had been felt in all the attempts at legislation on the subject that there was a vital difference between the circumstances of England and Scotland, on the one hand, and Ireland on the other, with respect to the relation of landlord and tenant which justified and demanded at the hands of the House of Commons an exceptional mode of legislation for the last-mentioned country. That difference lay at the foundation of all the past attempts at legislation which had been made, and was at once the justification and constituted the duty of the Government in bringing forward the present measure. In fact, the only resemblance he knew of between the tenure of land in Great Britain and Ireland was that in both countries, which differed therein from al most all the rest of the civilized world, the tenure of the tenant was short, precarious, and uncertain. But that state of things, anomalous as it might be, different as it was from the practice in other countries, had not produced in Great Britain those disadvantages by which it was attended in Ireland. It was commonly and most truly said that there was the essential distinction between the practice in England and Ireland that in this country the permanent improvement, and, he must say, the requisites for the cultivation and decent habitation of a farm, were provided by the landlord out of his own capital, whereas they were in Ireland left for the most part to the industry and the outlay of the tenant. These were facts with which the House was familiar, which lay at the root of all legislation on the subject, which had been so long ago as the time of the Report of the Devon Commission most strongly and emphatically stated by that important authority, and which were in a great degree as true to-day as they were then. The difference between the state of things in the two countries went even further, because, though it was the fact that the landlords in this country and in Scotland had done great things in the improvement of their estates, it was equally true that great things had been accomplished by English and Scotch tenants. That was accounted for by the happy circumstance that in this country there prevailed, and had prevailed for centuries and generations, an amount of hereditary confidence between the landlord and tenant which did not exist in Ireland, nor, he believed, in any other country in Europe-a confidence amounting, as stated by Adam Smith, to the production of a result nowhere else to be found in Europe-that of a tenant holding by a precarious tenure venturing to make improvements on his farm, trusting simply to the honour and generosity of the landlord. Such a state of things did not exist in Ireland. He would not go into the causes which led to that being so, and to trace which would require that he should enter into a historic review. It was sufficient to say that, as hon. Members knew very well, there was not that confidence between landlord and tenant in Ireland, that community of feeling, that mutual respect, that identity of race and religion which had produced in this country that happy, but most exceptional, state of things to which he had adverted. The consequence was that it was not to be ex pected that identical laws would produce given by the Act of 1860. The leases equally good effects in two countries in which that Act enabled the limited owner which the circumstances to which they to grant were leases of twenty-one years were applied were so entirely different. in the case of ordinary agricultural leases, That contrast of facts was fully admitted and forty-one years for building or reclaby the Act of 1860. We had, however, mation leases. He proposed to extend learnt much from the experience drawn those terms to thirty-one and sixty-one from the six years since that Act had years respectively. The terms which he passed. That Act laid down important proposed were those which were proposed principles, but it was hampered in its by Mr. Napier in his Bill, and which that operations and precautions and safeguards House had on a former occasion sanctioned, which it was now found had prevented it though they were afterwards cut down to a from attaining the object for which it was lower figure in another place. Those passed. That Act consisted of three powers were only enabling powers, and parts. The first dealt with the improve- there would be no compulsion on the landments of the landlord, and he found that lord to grant one term of lease rather than that portion of the Act had been brought another, but he thought it was wise and into operation to a very insignificant de- safe that the limited owner should possess gree. It was impossible, however, to say the power of giving longer leases if he that the landlords had refused to make use thought right. It was sometimes said that of it from any indisposition to improve it was a mistake to encourage the granting their estates, so far as they could prudently of long leases in Ireland. His own belief do so. There were, indeed, facts to the was that that objection was founded upon contrary. The House was aware what an idea totally inaccurate. No doubt in use the landlords in Ireland had made of old times long leases at low rentals did those admirable powers for the improve- lead to that system of middle letting which ment of land which were given under the had been the curse of the country. When supervision of the Board of Works. Since the farming of land was in the hands of an the Act giving those powers had passed, oppressed and despised class the notion was there had been no less than 5,000 ap- prevalent that there was nothing respectable plications from Irish landlords for the use in Ireland except the possession of land of £5,000,000 for the improvement of and living in idleness. That, coupled with their estates. Those applications went far the war prices, gave rise to an extravagant beyond the funds at the disposal of the and unnatural competition for land. But Board of Works, but nearly £2,000,000 all that had passed away now. There had had been used for the improvement of their been a gratifying and remarkable improveestates by the Irish landlords. It was ment in the management of land; subclearly, therefore, from no indisposition to letting had been greatly discouraged; proeffect such improvements that the land- fit rents had become almost impossible, lords had not availed themselves of the and industrious, honest farming was prefirst portion of the Act of 1860. He ferred to the old idle life of the Irish hoped by dispensing with the trouble and squireen. There was no reason to have expense which the present state of the law any fears of the operation of long leases necessitated-so far as was possible- and good tenures in Ireland. On the conthat a different result would be produced. trary, he believed that their effect would The next part of the Act of 1860 was be most beneficial to the interests of the that which dealt with leasing powers. country. He now came to the third and That part also laid down a most compre- most important provision of the Act of hensive and important principle-the prin- 1860-namely, that which dealt with the ciple that no private settlement should be tenants' improvements. There was no allowed to stand in the way of a proper longer any doubt that the tenants in Ireand beneficial leasing power; but the Act land were willing to improve the lands they surrounded that principle with restrictions held. Every one who knew anything of which rendered it in the same way inopera- Ireland was aware that, while labouring tive. He proposed to reserve the necessity under all sorts of difficulties, and in the of applying to a Court as at present in face of great discouragement, the small order to obtain its adjudication to cases in Irish cottiers had comparatively speaking which the successor to an estate should done wonders in this respect. raise an objection, but at the same time to went through the country without wonderextend the terms of the leasing power ing at the improvements which had been He never made by the farmers themselves. Houses | posed to interfere in no way with the perhad been built, fences put up, fields drained, fect freedom of contract between landlord and waste lands reclaimed-of course, not and tenant; but the Act provided that, in to anything like the extent to which the absence of any written contract to the they could wish to see such improvements contrary, the tenant shall, by the general carried out, but still to a degree very re- rule of law, have a limited beneficial interest markable under the circumstances. Thus, in the permanent improvements executed since 1841, 2,000,000 acres of wild land at his own cost. It was proposed to do had been re-claimed and made profitable, away with the notice, and to require no preand there could be no doubt that the liminary adjudication—as it was clear that greatest portion of it had been done by all such requirements would render the Act the tenants, showing that at least there totally inoperative. The Bill went on to had been no want of industry or of capital provide that should the tenant, after having on their part. It was also a remarkable executed such improvements, and in the fact, showing the improvement that had absence of any written agreement to the taken place in the condition of the tenant contrary, be dispossessed by his landlord, farmers in Ireland, that since 1850 the de- he should have a right to a lump sum by posits of small farmers in the Irish joint- way of compensation equivalent to the instock banks had increased from £5,000,000 creased letting value such improvements to £17,000,000. Nevertheless, the Act of should have given to the land. The Go1860 had not succeeded in inducing the vernment proposed that in the event of tenants to make any satisfactory use of the the landlord and tenant failing to come facilities offered them for improving their to an agreement as to the amount of comfarms, and after the experience of the work-pensation to be awarded to the latter, in ing of that Act, and after the important evidence given before the Committee of last year, there could be little doubt of the failure of that Act to do what it was intended to effect. There could be no doubt as to what had been the reason of its failure. It placed several obstacles in the way of tenants wishing to make improvements; for instance, there were the trouble and cost of an application to a court of justice in every case; there was the inadequacy of the compensation provided, and there was the mode of providing the compensation by an inquiry; and there was the very great obstacle that in every instance before the improvement could be made notice had to be given by the tenant to the landlord, which would act as an invitation to dissent on the landlord's part, and which, in the unanimous opinion of all acquainted with Irish tenant farmers, had operated, and would operate as a total bar to the success of the Act. Acting upon the experience thus gained, the proposed Act had been more simply constructed. Starting with the great leading fact that in Ireland the permanent improvement in farms -the essentials requisite for the farms, which no one in England would call improvements, and which would be performed by the landlord in this country-are executed by the tenants-the Act proposed to bring the general rule of law into accordance with the actual state of facts, and thus in accordance with the natural equity of the case. At the same time, it was pro case he should be so dispossessed, either party was to have the right of applying to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, who were to send down a competent valuer to the farm, who would be empowered to examine the improvements made, and to require documentary and oral evidence to be laid before him from all parties able to give it, and then to make his award. It was also proposed that in case either party should be dissatisfied with such award, there was to be a right of appeal to the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions-such Chairman to sit as a County Court Judge without a jury, and to decide finally upon the appeal. Those rights were limited both in point of amount and of time. The limitation in point of amount would be £5 per statute acre, while the limit in point of time would be forty-one years for buildings, &c., and thirty-one years for other improvements on the land, after which the tenant would lose his right to compensation. The effect of that would be that the holder of fifty acres would be entitled to make a claim of £250, and not more. Great difficulties were sometimes said to arise in ascertaining the amount to which the tenant should be entitled after a lapse of years, but he believed the difficulties suggested were far overstated, as the very course laid down by the Bill was being followed every day by private agreement between the parties. The valuer, who was to act in cases of private arbitration, would be a professional man ac quainted with the matters with which landlord by the terms of a written agreehe would have to deal, and he would ment between him and the tenant. These have all necessary evidence before him in general terms were the provisions of the as to the increased value of the land. Bill which on the part of the Government It was, of course, impossible to look for he ventured to lay before the House. He a perfect system, and the proposed one earnestly and sincerely trusted that these was intended to provide a general arbi- proposals would be received both by those trator, approved by authority, who, upon who represented the tenant and by those the whole, would settle fairly the question who represented the landlord in that House between the two parties. How would the in the spirit in which they were offered. case stand? The tenant would have added He had every reason to believe that those to the landlords' property certain requisites hon. Gentlemen who specially represented for its proper cultivation; the landlord would the tenant were anxious to see that queshave by his own act dispossessed the tenant; tion settled upon fair and reasonable terms, and the latter would then have a certain and were really desirous not to keep open, claim under that Bill to compensation in but to close that political sore. Although money. The law under those circumstances he had not the advantage of being present implying a contract would fairly imply the at a very important interview which had consent of the landlord to improvements recently taken place between many Irish which he had allowed to be effected. The Members and the Chancellor of the Exlandlord either by himself or through the chequer, he knew that the opinion then incoming tenant would pay the fair amount expressed was such as to give the greatest of compensation to the dispossessed tenant. encouragement to the Government in its The evicted tenant would not go forth into attempt now to settle that question on a the world a starving man, perhaps to be- reasonable basis. He trusted that those come a Ribandman, or a rebel, but would Members specially representing the intecarry with him, to start him in life afresh, rests of the Irish landlords in that House a certain sum of money, the fruit of his would be ready to meet the advances so own exertions or outlay. In return the made to them by the especial advocates of landlord would have an improved farm, the tenants. He hoped that Bill would bringing him in a higher rent. The coun- have the good fortune to be a sort of contry would find a better system of agricul- venient half-way house, where two parties ture adopted on that farm; probably there starting as they did from opposite points. would be also a decent dwelling for a of view might meet in harmony and accord; happier family, and certainly content- and it would be a great satisfaction to the ment and confidence would be spread Government and a real happiness to himthroughout the neighbourhood. In these self and his hon. and learned Friends who, matters it seemed to him that the indirect with himself, were specially charged with operation of a law was often as important that measure if they should succeed in any as its direct operation. He was deeply degree in producing by legislation, as far convinced that the operation of such legis- as legislation could do it, a security and lation as they now proposed, even when it protection to the industry of the Irish culdid not secure any definite remuneration tivator, and if by so doing they could in to a particular tenant, would yet have a any measure attain that greatest of all most important and essential influence upon objects, as he believed, which that House public opinion in Ireland. Because, while could set before itself—namely, the init would leave the landlord and tenant at crease of domestic comfort, of active inperfect liberty to regulate their own affairs dustry, of attachment to law and of loyalty by written contract, it would, as was their to the Crown, among the Irish people. The wish, place the law of the country on the right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving side of natural equity and justice. Without for leave to bring in the Bill. entering into the different clauses of the Bill, which would soon be in the hands of hon. Members, he would only then describe one important clause, which was this they proposed to take away the right of distress as far as the general operation of the law was concerned, that was to say, putting an end to the right of distress in all cases where it was not given to the LORD NAAS did not intend at that late hour to follow the right hon. Gentleman through the many details which he had brought before the House, yet he thought it necessary to offer one or two observations in consequence of the very important statements which had just been made. No Member of that House could be more anxious than he was to support any mea |