The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-15 00:00:00

THE IRISH LAND BILL.

Earl GRANVILLE then rose to move the second reading of
this bill, and commenced by referring to the difficulty of
the task which had devolved upon him. He said that it
had been admitted on all hands that there was great ne-
cessity for legislation on the subject, because the anomalies
that existed produced the greatest ill-feeling between the
landlord and the tenant. It was also desirable that some
improvement should be made in the law with respect to
land in Ireland, because it differed both in spirit and
in letter from that in England. He was quite aware that
the tenants in Ireland had grievances,but so had the land-
lords; and with respect to the improvements that were
made it was most desirable that as the tenants mostly
made them in Ireland they should be secured of receiving
all the benefits they were entitled to. The noble earl then
gave an outline of the attempts that had been made to
deal with the land question in Ireland during the last 35
years, and then went on to observe that the Government
after they had felt it their duty to deal with the subject
had taken up the matter with a determination to act with
strict justice between landlord and tenant, and the pro-
visions of the bill he believed would be to carry out that
intention to the utmost. The bill applied almost ex-
clusively to agricultural and pastural holdings in Ireland.
Its primary object was to give the tenant, on being re-
moved by the landlord, compensation on quitting his hold-
ing for disturbance. The bill also gave to the tenant on
quitting his holding, whether compulsory or not, com-
pensation for improvements. In the province of Ulster
and other parts oflreland where customs prevailed the tenant
was permitted, not compelled, to claim under that cus-
tom, but if he did so his claim to any other compensa-
tion was debarred. When a claim was made, not under
a custom, the compensation was assessed according to a
scale, the scale bearing an inverse proportion to the value
of the holding. In every case where an application was
made for the interference of the court, the court would
cause to be considered the equitable and moral aspect of
the case, and would make its award according to the wish
of the landlord and the tenant. The tenant could not be
evicted from the holding until the compensation was paid,
and security given for it by lodging the amount in
court; but in the event of the tenant being in arrears with
his landlord, or having been guilty of a breach of cove-
nant, the circumstance was to be taken into consideration
in the award. In addition, every tenant, in the absence
of an agreement to the contrary, on quitting was to be
entitled to the growing crops or their money value. The
above enactments were the pith of the bill, but he need
hardly say there were many other minor details. With
regard to the sale of land, provision was made that
the landlord might 'sell to the tenant, free of
all incumbrance, the tenant being required to
deposit one-third of the purchase-money, on being enabled
to borrow the remainder from the public sources, repay-
ing the sum borrowed by an annuity extending over 35
years. The bill was founded on the assumption that the
great bulk of the tenantry were not competent to protect
themselves, and the Government seeing the evils of the
present system had tried to remedy them with as little
disturbance and change as possible, by falling back upon
the customs which existed in the country, and the prac-
tices of good landlords, who were distributed all over
Ireland. He was not aware of all the objections that
could be made to the bill, but he knew the sincere desire
of its framers was to produce more friendly relations, and
a better state of things than at present existed in that
I country,and,to lead to increased prosperity throughout the

length and breadth of Ireland.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that within two years Par-
liament had been asked to legislate for Ireland, and the
only reason given was that an exceptional state of things
existed in that country ; but with regard to the course he
might feel it his duty to follow with regard to the propo-
sitions contained in the bill, he wished it to be clearly un-
derstood that he guarded himself against its being sup-
posed that he admitted that any of the provisions of the
measure could be applied either to England or Scotland.
It was desirable to know whether there was any necessity
for exceptional legislation, whether the bill met the evils
complained of ; also, whether the proposed measure did
not go further than was necesary. There might be, he
fully admitted, isolated instances -of oppression, but he
denied as a general rule that the Irish tenants were in-
competent to make bargains with the landlords or to pro-
tect their own interests. He could not admit that the
Irish landlords treated their tenants with harshness, but
he must say that the operations of the Encumbered Estates
Act had brought about a peculiar state of things that ren-
dered some legislation at all events necessary. The nobleduke
then proceeded to refer to the different clauses of the bill,
Clause 3 would call forth much consideration, but with
regard to clause 5 he looked upon that as a direct inter-
ference with the rights of property. After the fullest
consideration he had come to the conclusion that he ought
to support the motion for the second reading, because in
the event of the rejection of the measure they would be
called upon again to consider the matter in another form,
and perhaps, though he hardly thought it possible, worse
than the present. He should go into committee with a
full desire to amend the bill, and also with a strong deter-
mination not to upset the cardinal points of the bill.
Earl RUSSELL expressed his approval of the measure, as
he looked upon it as the only bill ever submitted to Par-
liament that really met the [evil of which so many com-
plained. He thought it most unjust that a tenant should
be liable to summary eviction at the mere whim of his
landlord without receiving compensation for improve-
ments. Yet, according to the present law in Ireland,
such could be done. He was quite ready to admit that
there were cases in which tenants were fairly treated, but
when a case of oppression took place it produced a general
feeling of insecurity that rendered legislation absolutely
necessary. The Government had undertaken a great duty,
and he did sincerely hope they would be able successfully
to accomplish the end they had in view. He thought it
was a wise proposition not to extend the Ulster right to
the whole of Ireland, as in some of the western parts it
could not have been introduced without encountering
great opposition and causing great mischief. By
giving the occupier compensation for improve-
ments actually made they applied the remedy
where it was really required. The bill had been
so much improved in the House of Commons that he had
come to the conclusion not to vote for any amendments
that might be attempted to be introduced. He enter-
tained a sanguine hope that the result of the passing of
the bill would show that the desire of the united British
Parliament was to do all that was possible to produce
prosperity in Ireland.

Lord ORANMORE and BROWNE said he entertained the
greatest objections to the bill, as it contained principles
that ought never to receive the sanction of Parliament.
He did not believe it would in the slightest degree put
down agrarian outrage;and further, the bill took away the
property of the landlord without giving him compensation,
a proceeding which he could describe as nothing short of

an act of dishonesty. He thought one peculiar fact that
ought to make their lordships hesitate before passing the
bill, was that there had not been one single peti-
tion presented to the other House of Parliament in its
favour. He believed the measure was opposed to public
morality, right, and justice, and therefore he moved that
it be read a second time that day six months.
Lord PORTSMOUTH supported the bill, as he believed it

would put an end to capricious eviction, and that it would
for the future make the Irish tenant both peaceable and
loyal.
Lord LIFFORD objected to the bill as it stood, as he
believed it would act as a total check to the _prosperity of
Ireland, but he did not wish it thrown out, as he hoped it
would be greatly improved in committee.
Lord DUFFERIN strongly urged their lordships not only
to read the bill a second time, but to pass it without any
material alteration. He asked the House to adopt that
course, not as a follower and subordinate member of the
Government, but because the main provisions of the bill
were just and equitable, and perfectly consistent with
the rights of property, and also because it would conduce
to the peace and prosperity of Ireland.
The Marquis of SALISBURY said it was very difficult
for him either to approve or condemn the bill now under
consideration. He highly approved of the compensation
clauses for improvement, as he believed they contained
proposals which were not only wise but just. If it was
only on the account of those propositions, he could not
bring himself to vote against the second reading of the
bill. He also 'approved of the part of the measure known
as Mr. Bright's clauses. Though a small proprietary was
objectionable in an economical point of view, yet that was
a small question as compared with the larger question of
the political point of view. It was quite as possible to