measures they think requisite for the management of their own property. We do not think that in making any we

and quite as applicable to be brought within the jurisdiction of the Court. I am responsible for the proposals contained in the Bill. I believe in its utility, but I believe in its utility as a means of escape from greater evils, and I am not willing to be a party to its gratuitous extension where there is neither necessity nor conclusive authority to justify such extension. There is one other form of the argument which I desire to put to the Committee. I do not think, Sir, that we can safely overcharge this Bill. I do not think that hon. Gentlemen will be wise if they determine to take advantage of this Bill for the purpose of endeavouring, perhaps at a considerable expenditure of time, to introduce into it everything that they may individually, or that even an important body of them may believe to be the material constituent of a perfect Land Law for Ireland. I hope, Sir, that the Bill is a good ship, and that she carries sufficient cargo. But if she takes much more, and especially in deck loading, I am afraid lest she should founder or capsize. In other words, and in strictly Parliamentary language, let me observe upon what is the true character of our duty when we are dealing with a measure of this kind-the duty, above all, of the Government, but the duty also, undoubtedly, of Parliament. We must not be led by our own ideas of ab

recommendation at this moment should have anything to rest upon except an argument, of some weight certainly, but, at the same time, one which has not been sifted in the latest public examination of the facts of the case, which rests on grounds entirely exceptional, and which, when we are attempting to carry a measure which is exceptional in its character, would be greatly enlarging the bounds of the Bill, without having the slightest support from authority. We have made a proposition as to the jurisdiction of the Court. We are now asked to extend the jurisdiction of the Court to the division of holdings through the medium of the regulations for the sale of the tenant's interest. That is, undoubtedly, beyond all question, taking out of the hands of the landlord one of the most distinctive features of the management of his estate. In the distinctions between the position of the tenant and of the landlord, there is none so fundamental as this-that the business of the tenant is with the holding, and the holding alone, while the business of the landlord is with the entire property. If we were to say to the tenant-"You shall, by an indirect process in the management of the estate, have the power of breaking up the holding for other people, and settling for the land-stract perfection in a measure. If we lord through the Court what number of tenants he shall have," you would be plainly placing in the hands of the tenant and of the Court together one of the most essential responsibilities which belong to the management of landed property. And why should you stop there? Why not give the Court jurisdiction when similar questions arise in regard to sub-letting? It may be shown that, in some cases, sub-letting would be reasonable and natural. Why is not the judgment of the Court then to come in on the appeal of the tenant to determine whether the land may not be sub-let under given circumstances, and under securities like those which my hon. Friend proposes? But it does not even stop there, for, as far as I can see, I am not aware of any of those incidents which make up the character of proprietorship which we desire to maintain in its efficiency, which might not afford grounds quite as fair

Mr. Gladstone

can frame a measure which is sufficient in our conscientious judgment for the attainment of certain great public objects, the next thing which we have to consider is the balances of forces which it will have to encounter the propelling forces which we can reckon in its favour, and the opposing forces which it will excite to resist its passing, and thereby defeat our efforts. Now, that has been the most anxious part of the task of the Government in the preparation of this measure. We have, we hope, framed a measure which it is well worth the while of the people of Ireland to accept; a measure which we hope will, without violence, but by a steady process, tend to allay and reduce to comparative insignificance the difficulties that now mar the relations of landlord and tenant. But having done that, and fully believing with my hon. Friends on this side that to have presented a weak measure on a subject of this kind would have

been idle fatuity, we are bound then | Minister. He felt sure his hon. Friend to consider how we can frame such a the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) measure best, and insure, humanly would give those arguments every conspeaking, the assent of the Legislature sideration before deciding on the course to it. I cannot conceive a greater public to be pursued with regard to his Amendevil than the failure of the measure. ment. Still, he could not help thinking But if I have that impression about the that the right hon. Gentleman had somefailure of this measure, if my Colleagues what exaggerated the possible effects and myself are anxious to use every which would follow from the adoption effort they can to secure its passing, of his hon. Friend's Amendment. He the first effort is to exclude from the could not admit the parity of the cases measure all that they do not deem of sub-dividing and sub-letting. Subessential to their purpose, for fear that letting had been in the past, as was well they should needlessly multiply and known, and would be in the future, a aggravate the obstacles they have to most terrible evil; and he felt sure there overcome. That is the first duty incum- was not a single Member from Ireland bent upon us; and it is on that ground, who would ask for one moment that submore than on the ground of any special letting should be tolerated. As his hon. narrow argument, that we are most de- Friend had clearly and practically put sirous to exclude from the Bill, and to it before the Committee, sub-division in persuade the Committee and my hon. itself was, no doubt, an evil; but he had Friend if we can to exclude from the not asked the Committee to pronounce Bill, propositions which, although they in favour of it. As he had understood might be useful in themselves, they his hon. Friend, he asked the Committee must admit to be novel, for which they and Her Majesty's Government not to cannot claim any authority extraneous pronounce in this Bill in favour of conto this House, and which they cannot solidation--not to pronounce, as it were, prove might not, by parity of reasoning, indirectly in favour of the system under lead to many proposals which would which grazing farms were established. tend to weaken the propelling force of He appealed to the principle of free reason and authority which we hope to trade in land, and to the principle of enlist, and have, perhaps, enlisted in contract, of which so much had been favour of this Bill, and to increase, on heard of late, in favour of this Amendthe other hand, the resisting forces ment, which would set more land free, against which we must be on our guard, and thereby lessen the present land and to which, above all, we must take hunger by enabling those in want of care not to impart, by any act of ours, farms to get them. But the effect of the appearance of reason. It is on that the Amendment would, after all, be but argument of political prudence that I slight. It would not affect those large would almost hope that Gentlemen, who grazing farms which his hon. Friend may even attach great value to this pro- had so well described, except very inposition, may, nevertheless, be inclined directly. The Amendment would, thereto desist from prosecuting it. At any fore, have but a limited effect; and he rate, they will see that it is not from thought that very limitation might inpedantry, nor from indifference to the duce the right hon. Gentleman, even importance of their objects, but on a after all the arguments which he had deliberate and careful examination of laid before the Committee, to re-consider the interests involved in the question, the question, and to say that the Goand with the earnest desire to prosecute vernment would leave it open during in the most effective manner the common the progress of the Bill, in order to see end that we have in view, that we feel if, on Report, something could be done bound to say that we are not able to in the direction of the Amendment of accede even to so carefully framed a pro- his hon. Friend. position as that of my hon. Friend.

COLONEL COLTHURST said, he believed he expressed the sentiments of most Members from Ireland sitting on those Benches in saying that they were not insensible to the arguments so ably put before the Committee by the Prime

MR. LEAMY thought, in view of the statement of the Prime Minister that it was his intention to exclude all Amendments extending the operation of the Bill, that it would save a good deal of the time in Committee if some Officer of the Crown would go through the Amend

ments standing on the Paper, and then | cases, where the Court thought it was state those which the Government would for the good of the locality, to extend accept; because, from the statement of to the tenant the permission to subthe right hon. Gentleman, there was divide his farm. He trusted the Amendevery reason to fear that no Amend- ment might still be agreed to by the ments of any kind would be accepted. Prime Minister. It was very desirable that the Committee should know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to accept any substantial Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the consolidation of farms in England had worked badly for the landlords; and it was, therefore, only reasonable to conclude that consolidation would work badly in Ireland. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister said it was altogether too much to give the tenant the power of sub-dividing his holding with the sanction of the Court. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the great majority of Irish Members were in favour of the Amendment; and as he had declined to accede to it, he thought it would be well if Her Majesty's Government would give an intimation as to whether or not they intended to meet all the Amendments put forward by Irish Members in the same way.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE pointed out that the County Court Judges were admitted to be unfit to deal with matters of this kind. For his own part, although he approved of small farms as much as other hon. Members, he could not agree to the Amendment in its present form, inasmuch as it left the question of subdivision to be settled by the Court. He thought that some directions ought, at any rate, to be given that the landlord should receive compensation in cases of this kind.

MR. GILL thought the Amendment, if it were adopted by the Government, would be found to be most useful. The only argument of any strength contained in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was that, by turning a large farm into a number of small ones, the claims for compensation for disturbance would be increased, and that this would work against the interest of the landlords. But he thought that difficulty could very easily be remedied, by adding a proviso to the clause that the rate of compensation should remain the same for a portion as for the entire farm. By that plan the landlord's interest would be fully protected, and it would give an opportunity in urgent

Mr. Leamy

MR. FINDLATER said, he regarded the Amendment of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Givan) as a step in the right direction, and, therefore, trusted the Prime Minister would reconsider the determination he had expressed not to accede to it. With regard to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, founded upon the injustice which might be caused by reason of increased compensation in cases when large holdings were divided, he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Gill) would very easily remove the injustice which the right hon. Gentleman feared might ensue. No doubt it would be more troublesome to a landlord to have to collect his rent from several persons than from one; but in the peculiar circumstances of the case he thought the landlord might be fairly asked to make some concession, and to forego the process of consolidation which, at the present moment, was acting so injuriously to the best interests of the country. It was not to be supposed for a moment that the Court would act in any way harshly or unfairly towards the landlord or his interest. The Court would have the power of examining into all the circumstances of each case; and he was quite sure that the Court, which would be appointed by the Government, would be such as to give satisfaction to everyone. If it did not do so the Act would be altogether a failure. Of course, if the Amendment were accepted, some provision must be made for the apportionment of the rent in case the division was allowed by the Court. On the whole, he was quite sure the proposal of his hon. Friend would give great satisfaction to the tenant farmers in Ireland, and would satisfy the people that a genuine effort was being made to promote that general distribution of land which was so much wanted in Ireland.

MR. BOURKE said, he hoped the Prime Minister would not follow the recommendation of the hon. Member who had just sat down, to disturb the determination already arrived at. his own part, he was inclined to look at

this matter rather from a public point | selling his interest in his tenancy. That of view than from that of the landlord was the object of the tenant right or tenant. He did so, notwithstanding movement--which had never claimed that the right hon. Gentleman had the right of sub-division. Now, he pointed out that the landlord must, if thought that in asking the landlords this Amendment were carried, suffer to concede those points they were asked great injuries. No one could doubt that to concede a great deal, and he did not the effect of the Act of 1870 had been believe the area of the Bill would be to increase very much the consolidation wisely extended by asking for a further of holdings. The effect of this Amend- concession in the direction of the Amendment would be to increase the amount ment of the hon. Member for Monaghan of claims for compensation for disturb- (Mr. Givan). If the Amendment were ance. Again, the tenant might sell agreed to, a landlord who had, say, 20 only that portion of the tenancy which tenants, and whose rents were punctually related to the valuable portion of the paid, might have the number of his land, and then the landlord would retain tenants increased to 100, because there only the less valuable portion of it. was no limitation in the proposal of the That was another case in which injury hon. Member as to the amount of subwould arise to the landlord. He looked division which might take place, and in upon this point also from a public point that respect the Amendment before the of view, and was quite sure that the Committee went far beyond the intention action of the Land League in such cases of the hon. Member for Limerick County as that would be very potent and very (Mr. O'Sullivan), who proposed that the quick. There was no doubt that the principle of sub-division should be conLand League would call upon all persons fined to farms of £100 annual value, and who had farms, say, of 100 acres, to apply to portions of them of not less than £30 to the Court for leave to sub-divide their annual value. The Amendment before holdings; and, of course, every pressure the Committee, therefore, appeared to of the kind that had been but too fre-him more unreasonable than that of the quent of late would be brought to bear on holders of larger properties to go to the Court in the same way. The Committee were aware that land hunger expressed itself in various ways; and he could not but think that this Amend- MR. SHAW entreated the Prime Miment, if adopted, would give it the nister to look again into the question and power of expressing itself very power-reconsider it before the Report. fully. The sub-division of land was his own part, he was in favour of comalready a fertile source of family dis-pletely protecting the interest of the putes in Ireland. One of the witnesses, landlord; there was no reason why the among several who gave evidence on landlord's property should be cut up, or this point before the Bessborough Com- why he should have 10 tenants on his mission, stated that nothing was so fatal estates instead of one. He thought the to the peace of families and the neigh-case would be met by adding to the subbourhood as that anything like divided ownership should exist-that was to say, divided ownership of the tenancy, which the individual members of the tenant's family could bring pressure to bear upon the father to divide as they wished.

hon. Member for Limerick County; and in the interest of the Bill itself he took the opportunity of stating that his opinion did not coincide with that of hon. Members who supported it.

For

section the words-"Except such cases as may be brought before the Court upon reasonable and just grounds."

No

MR. MARUM reminded the Committee that the late Mr. Butt was in favour of sub-dividing farms exceeding MR. LITTON said, it would be to 60 acres in extent into parts of not less inflict a great injustice, quite outside than 30 acres and £30 rental. the object of the Bill, to place landlords doubt the question was beset with diffiin a position in which they would be ex-culties; but, at the same time, public posed to injury. It was manifest that the object of the measure was that the tenant should have security for the improvement of his holding, that he should pay a fair and reasonable rent, and that he should also have the power of

feeling in Ireland was very much in favour of the sub-division of large holdings, and he trusted the Government would re-consider the Amendment. He wished to know what would be done in the case of co-partners or tenants in

1

1

(

they think requisite for theatri

A ETTlicable to be brought

of the al OWIT property. within the jurisdictor of the Court." I EL I-STORE.E to the proposals conI believe in its behave in its utility as a

making an
B+

at t the moment Dave Ruytiling to rest upon, EXCEPT Cut of bout weight certaiz Faux time one which has no the latest public examina4ue of the cust which rests curely exceptional, and Wich we de altompting to carry exospiona! in ite would be great emarging The beads of six d without having authority. pport from ų progomitiga as to the

"

J

queans of escats from greater evils, and I an 20 willing to be a party to its gratuitous extension where there is Beither necessity no conclusive authorix to justify such extension. There is one other torn. of the argument which I Gesire to put to the Committee. I do not think. Si that we can safely overcharge tins Bill. I do not think that hon. Gentemer will be vist if they determine to take advantage of this Bill for the purWe are now pose of endeavouring, perhaps at a contood the jarede low of the biderable expenditure of time, to introFourt Belediyism of hold y gethrough Cute into it everything that they may This medium of Nix angukalove for the individually, or that even an important pole of the Pond's placa. That is. body of them may believe to be the unbounddolly, lopard ully extion, taking material constituent of a perfect Land bark of the loud of the landlord one of Law for Ireland. I hope. Sir, that the Her need dichincha Balunce of the Bill is a good ship, and that she carries trungtament of low cadute In the dis-sufficient cargo. But if she takes much Feder fed scom the praction of the more, and especially in deck loading, I Trunk and d the bandlord, thus is none am afraid lest she should founder or cinnelane wula Hon. Houd to business expsize. In other words, and in strictly of the Fund to all this holding, and Parliamentary language, let me observe de feddings adun, alal. How bounces of apon what is the true character of our Towth this sub popaty duty when we are dealing with a meaYou sure of this kind-the duty, above all, in the of the Government, but the duty also, undoubtedly, of Parliament. We must not be led by our own ideas of abstract perfection in a measure. If we can frame a measure which is sufficient in our conscientious judgment for the attainmont of certain great public objects, the noxt thing which we have to consider is tho balances of forces which it will have mead d landed to encounter the propelling forces Joubt you abge which we can reckon in its favour, and He Faut fucke The opposing forces which it will excite fotoarit its passing, and thereby defeat fc com ptorts Now, that has been the mal anxions part of the task of the tornmont in the preparation of this We have, we hope, framed a mukang which it is well worth the while at the people of Ireland to accept; a tune which we hope will, without vrdone, bắc by a steady process, tend and reduce to comparative in

"

which