tracted with their tenants, in many in- I concessions he should be able to make stances, that no such thing should exist. the more easily would the Bill be passed. On these estates no one knew when a There were two or three points-he was tenancy was to be vacant, or who the not going into them now-concessions future tenant was to be. He might on which would greatly shorten the come from the neighbourhood, or he labours of the Committee. He, howmight be selected from a distance; in ever, would only now dwell upon this fact, the landlords had done all they matter of the well-managed estates. could to retain in their own hands all The right hon. Gentleman had said that those rights and privileges which, in in Ireland the earth hunger was SO 1870, the Prime Minister himself thought strong that rents might be raised and so much of. His great object then was people would come and rent land at that the landlord should live on his most exorbitant prices. People would. estate and discharge all the duties of a do that now. They would pay exorbilandlord, laying out his money to the tant prices for farms on estates where best interest. The Prime Minister had great improvements had been carried distinctly laid it down that it was better, out, and how was the right hon. Gentlein the interest of all parties, that there man going to prevent it? The farms should be compensation for disturbance, would be publicly sold, no doubt; but and he had distinctly stated that there when it was known that the rent was should be no right whatever; and he low, that everything had been done, (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) held the right that the tenant could step into a good hon. Gentleman to these words, which holding, and that he would find everywere most important. If they meant thing necessary at his hand, a far higher nothing at that time, then the right price would be bid for it. There was no hon. Gentleman never ought to have disguising that fact, and he ventured to made use of them, because people had say it would be one of the cruellest acts dwelt on them and had believed them, of injustice to men who had endeavoured and, on the strength of them, had felt to do their duty to allow the Bill to pass themselves secure in laying out their without some provision to protect their money on their estates. He would put properties. He knew several estates of it to the right hon. Gentleman, when this kind, and, seeing what the landlords people had laid out money in this way had done, they were bound to consider -when they had managed their estates the matter well and fairly. He was not to the best of their ability, when there quite sure that the hon. Member who were no complaints on them, and every- had brought forward the proposal had thing had been done to the benefit and put it quite as clearly before the Cominterest of the tenants-by what right, mittee as he might have done. He might unless there was something which, in have gone more into detail, and have the public interest, should condemn shown that these estates could not be them, ought they to be mulct in the compared with the others with which way proposed? The right hon. Gentle- the Bill dealt. The Prime Minister man had no right to deal with them as had himself admitted it by saying that he had said he would deal with them. these rents were not to be touched when The Prime Minister had shown that they came to Clause 7. But that very earth hunger was the one thing which admission showed that the free sale had disturbed Ireland so much. Well, clause was unjust, and the worst of all they were obliged to look at all these the provisions of the Bill. It was the clauses, and, when the right hon. Gen- thing which would damage the intleman said "We are going to consider coming tenants more than anything else the principle whether landlords are to which had been done, and many would go into the Court," he (Sir Walter B. live to rue the day when free sale was Barttelot) would answer him boldly-granted to the whole of Ireland. "If the landlord is to have an equal right with the tenant to go into the Court it would very much facilitate the passing of this Bill." If the right hon. Gentleman wished to facilitate the progress of the measure, the more information he gave them with regard to the No thing would pauperize Ireland more than the free sale which would be given under the 1st clause of the Bill. He would not go further into the matter; but he did not think the Prime Minister had touched the real question at all. He had said that there was nothing to sell, or that there was only a small | estates in Ireland. He was glad Her modicum; but it seemed to him (Sir Majesty's Government would not accept Walter B. Barttelot) that more would the Amendment, and trusted they would be given for these than for any other resist all similar proposals. properties in Ireland. MR. STUART-WORTLEY said, that if they had set out with a clause to the effect that in future no landlord could refuse his consent to the assignment of a tenancy except under conditions mentioned in sub-section 5 of Clause 1, free sale would have been granted at once. and the Committee would have been spared all these discussions as to what it was the tenant had to sell. Whatever might have been the intention of the Government in otherwise drafting the Bill, there was a certain amount of it which was rather startling; and hon. Members on that (the Conser COLONEL COLTHURST wished to point out two fallacies which, it seemed to him, were to be found in the Amendment, and certainly in the speech of his hon. Friend. The first was that free sale-or the Ulster tenant right, which was the same thing-was, per se, a bad thing. With regard to this, it was quite sufficient to point to the Province of Ulster; but he would give one authority, which, he thought, ought to have some weight with right hon. and hon. Members opposite-namely, the late Lord Chief Justice Whiteside. His Lordship, speaking of the Ulster Cus-vative) side of the House would like tom, had said "If these principles have been productive of so much benefit in Ulster, they ought to be extended to the rest of Ireland; that was to say that the very thing ought to be done which his hon. Friend said would cause the ruin of Ireland. The number of estates in Ireland upon which all the improvements had been done by the landlord was infinitesimal. They were really not worth taking into consideration. He still further maintained that on these estates the right of free sale, or free sale as understood by this Bill, would not injure the landlord in the least. It was quite true that in regulating the rent account should be taken of the improvements effected by the landlord, and the landlord having let his land for a small sum. But he was afraid there were very few estates on which the improvements had been made entirely at the cost of the landlord, and the land was let at a low rent. It would be unreasonable to suppose that it should be otherwise, taking into consideration that three-fourths of the holdings were under the value of £60 a-year. It would be impossible for any except a few of the richest landlords to make improvements on such small holdings, and, at the same time, let them at low rents. Therefore he thought that all these Amendments tending to regulate free sale, and pointing out the hardships to which what were called "improving landlords" would be subject were entirely illusory. Such estates as those in question would be infinitesimal in number compared to the great mass of the Sir Walter B. Barttelot to be told what was to be done in the case of those tenants-and they were not a few in number-who had divested themselves of the right of assignmentwho had enabled the landlord, by contract, to prohibit them from assigning to a person of whom he might not approve. They had been told that the tenant's interest was resolvable into certain elements. The present Amendment applied to those cases where the tenant's interest did not consist of improvements made by himself or any previous tenant, nor in money he had paid, so that he had no interest but the fancy value which unwholesome earth hunger gave to his tenancy. A landlord might strive. by every means in his power, to keep his land outside the operation of the Act. No one should blame him for this; and, surely, if he should be able by making improvements to exclude his estate from the operation of the Act, the effect would not be bad. On the other hand, the tenant's interest would be to make improvements in order to bring himself within the Act. It seemed to him, therefore, that if the Amendment were adopted they would bring about a healthy competition between the landlord and the tenant. The landlord and the tenant would be perpetually striving who should do the greatest amount of good to the land. He did not believe in legislation which failed to favour the application of capital to production in Ireland. If the efforts of those landlords who, in the past, had expended money in improving their estates met with no recognition, in the future there would be very little disposi- | concerned. There could be no doubt in tion to cause capital to flow into the land the mind of any unprejudiced person which had so long and so disastrously that the proposal of the hon. Member stood in need of it. for Great Grimsby tended to promote the progress of the Bill; and in supporting that Motion he wished briefly to reply to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said, among other things, that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby seemed hardly to grasp the full significance of his own Amendment; and he then proceeded to show that the Amendment, when properly understood, might be shown to refer to, or to touch upon, a matter so small as to be hardly worth consideration. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), on the other hand, thought his hon. Friend had shown that he was fully master of the question which he had brought forward, and he ventured to say further-in spite of the dictum of the Prime Minister-that, in his view, the question involved in the Amendment was not a small but a very great one, perhaps, indeed, the most important that the House would have to discuss while it was in Committee on this Bill. The proposal, in brief, was to exempt what were called English managed estates from the operation of the clause which was under discussion-in other words, to exempt such estates from the free sale of the tenancies mentioned in the 1st clause. In asking the Committee to set up a class of exemptions in regard to free sale, his hon. Friend had set out on the ground of the consideration that the House, in being asked to adopt this measure, was asked to do so because the measure was one which was justified only by the peculiar circumstances of the Irish land tenure. Evidence given before the Devon, the Richmond, and the Bessborough Commissions, and state LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE pointed out that although this Amendment had been discussed at considerable length the time of the Committee had not been wasted. The point at issue was one of the most important that were likely to be raised; and when, one way or the other, the Committee had disposed of it, they would have passed one of what might be called the principal obstacles to the rapid progress of the Bill. The more thoroughly they threshed out the point at this stage of the Bill, and disposed of their doubts concerning the clause, the more rapidly would they be able to dispose of the remaining provisions. It was perfectly true, as the Prime Minister had reminded them, that, strictly speaking, they could not discuss anything but the clause immediately before the Committee; but it was almost impossible to discuss this Amendment, or any part of Clause 1, without having mental reference to Clauses 3 and 7. He specially dwelt upon this point now because there had been a great deal of unreasonable impatience outside the House as to the progress made by the Committee. It was no waste of time to discuss these little details, because in dealing with them they were deciding important points that would otherwise have to be considered later on. But, no doubt, these small points had been much too disagreeable for Gentlemen who criticized the proceedings of the Committee in the Press to make themselves acquainted with; therefore, the future rate of progress of the Committee had been calculated according to the rate of progress made with Clause 1. He mentioned these things in order to point out that those who criticized the action of the Committee were utterly unacquainted with the details of the measure, and to give him an opportunity of declaring that he, for one, was most anxious to do nothing to impede the legitimate progress of the Bill. He challenged any hon. Member to say that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, or any other Amendment proceeding from that part of the House, was anything else than to the point and properly drawn, as far as its terms were ments contained in Thom's Almanack and Directory, a most interesting and well-informed publication, showed that in Ireland it was the custom for the tenants on estates to make the permanent improvements, while in England such improvements were made by the landlords. It was also shown further that the English custom had crept into the management of Irish estates by reason of the fact that many of them had been put under the management of English agents who went to their work imbued with English ideas. Whether the English system had or had not been 2. ur TL & E pendency tion must in the sun of Lider the Last Act of evo nare aged rapezenon for dearance at the These were mere as werna die compensation for disturba va & managent and not an absoDe mg; and athough it might be sary, in regard to small tenancies, There was 2.:: mof busines er fr vul a give a large The would be no doubt that -in the That fare ses of poverty is Send void mase to operate if this ww the state of things. It was name of piety in Ireland that unTeam Calle soms were given by tenan fe te serspacey of land, and, these ms being given. when, in course of time, the tenant found that he could n get back the interest on the money for payment of which he had acquired the right of entry upon his holding, be began to clamour for a reduction of his rent. This being so, he complained that, as the clause at present stood, it was not possible to see how far it would be in the power of the Court to protect landlords against the payment by persons wishing to occupy land of these ..ze what had taken place, no ones be justified in founding argu- unreasonable sums, which would constimente on arbitrary suppositions. Then tute the nucleus of a large tenant right they were told that yearly tenancies which would eat into the rent and tend were terms of tenancy so short that his to keep it down to what was less than a hon. Friend was scarcely justitied in just sam to be paid. For these reasons basing any argument in support of his he should support the Amendment of Amendment upon them. It was not, his hon. Friend the Member for Great however, in his view, a small question. Grimsby Hors knew that because, although, at the present mother were threat ment, the question of this particular ten- that Comm ant right might be one of comparative add unimportance, it might, under the ope ration of the Bill before the Commute become a matter of very great import Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice pre long in ry disagree compensa low of that posss his be it now bellies T Committee were accepted nothing more would be heard of those demands for compensation-demands made on behalf of the English-managed estates, on which large sums of money had been expended by the landlords in the making of improvements, such landlords having conducted the management of their properties on what might be called civilized principles. All that his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby asked was that the good landlords should be exempted from the operation of this clause, and whether they were many or few was in no way the point at issue. MR. SHAW LEFEVRE said, his noble Friend seemed to think the Amendment before the Committee one of the most important in the Bill, mainly because he appeared to think that a considerable number of estates in Ireland were conducted on the English principle. LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE said, he had been misunderstood. He put the issue referred to entirely aside. MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, resuming, said, he understood his noble Friend to say that in any case, whether the estates conducted on the English principle were many or few, the proposition of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby ought to be adopted. He had himself been in many parts of Ireland, and ventured to say, as the result of the experience thus gained, that there were in the whole country very few estates managed on the English plan. He might go further, and say that he had the authority of a Member of the Duke of Richmond's Commission for saying that the Commission had not found a single estate in Ireland managed purely and simply on the English system. In further proof of this, he would refer to a Return which had been laid before the Richmond Commission. The Committee of landlords had collected statistics of expenditure, and it was shown by the figures that in the course of 30 or 40 years the landlords had expended £3,500,000 in the making of improvements on their properties, which extended to about 4,000,000 acres. This was at the rate of about 24 per cent per annum, whereas the expenditure of English landlords on their properties in the way of maintenance and improvement was not less than at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL called the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the Fitzwilliam estate. MR. SHAW LEFEVRE said, he believed that even on that estate a great many improvements had been made by the tenants. With respect to the £3,500,000 which had been expended by the landlords in making improvements on the 4,000,000 acres to which he had referred, more than half had been borrowed from the State, and the interest on the loans had been paid, not by the landlords, but by the tenants. He did not deny that, in a certain number of cases, the Irish landlords had made improvements on their properties by constructing main drainage works on their estates, and advancing money for the building of houses. But, at the same time, it could not be denied that the cases of English-managed estates were so few that they could be very easily counted, and provision was made in the Bill to meet them in such a way as that tenants would not be allowed to go to the Courts for judicial determinations of rent, but would remain, simply, tenants from year to year, and would be in a position to sell such tenancies which they could now do at Common Law, which it was not proposed to repeal by the present Bill. Setting the benefit the landlord would gain under Clause 1 against the loss he might be supposed to suffer under any other of the provisions of the Bill, he could not but think that the balance of advantage was in his favour. MR. CHAPLIN said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the proposal of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby did not go far enough; but there was a fallacy in his argument when he urged that the tenant would not continue under the terms of the Bill the freedom of sale of his holding which he had before, when the rent came to be settled. He had listened with great satisfaction to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice,, who had demolished altogether the argument in favour of the clause as it stood, and he could not understand how the noble Lord was able to reconcile his speech with the general support which he had promised to give to the Bill. On the general question, he could not understand the statement of the right hon. Gentleman |