The Sun.
London, England, 1870-04-06 00:00:00

THE IRISH LAND BILL.

The House then went into committee on this bill.
Mr. GLADSTONE said, in the absence of his right hon.
friend the Secretary for Ireland, he had to move an
amendment to the 3rd clause after the word " compen-
sation ;" but he proposed to make an alteration
in the words proposed to be inserted in order
to meet the objections which had been raised
last night by his right honourable friend behind
him (Sir R. Palmer) who complained that in com-
pensating the tenant for loss of holding, the extent of that
loss must be assumed. The words as they stood in the
paper were, "for the loss sustained by him in quitting his
bolding;" but he proposed to alter the amendment as
followed :—" For the loss which the court should find nad
been sustained by him in quitting his holding."
That alteration would chew that the loss claimed had been
the subject of judicial inquiry, and if hom members
would refer to Clause 12, they would see that the tenant
was required to state the particulars of his claim, and
from this it would clearly appear that the amount claimed
for loss must be shewn and not assumed.

Mr. CHAPLIN complained of certain observations made
by the right hon. gentleman last night towards the close
of the debate, to the effect that the landlords had not
endeavoured to learn anything relative to the require-
ments of the tenants. He protested against such charges
being made.

Mr. GLADSTONE said he believed the words he made use
of were, "no adequate endeavour," but if he had made
use of the words as quoted by the hon.,gentlemen be very_
much regretted it.
Mr. CHAPLIN replied that he had taken down the worts
and he must protest against such charges being made
against the landlords as he knew that, speak-
ing generally, it was their with to do the best
in their power for their tenants. He was
scarcely prepared for the change that had .been
made in that amendment by the right hon. gentleman,
but still he was of opinion that there was still a great
omission in the bill, as it did not state what was the
nature of the loss for which the tenant was to be compen-
sated. Compensation for improvement was clear enough,
but with respect to the other, it ought to be made quite
apparent, whether the compensation was to be for loss Ai
labour or loss of capital.
Mr. WALTER objected to the alteration without some
!qualification which had not yet been offered, He frankly
admitted that the introductory words were an improve-
ment, but it appeared t 6 him that the amendments of the
Government were all advances on the original demand.
He objected particularly to the sliding scale of compensa-
tion as too large, and without it was intended that
some steps were to be taken to reduce the scale from seven
years to five, he could not vote for the amendment. One
of the great causes of the present state of Ireland was the
tenacity with which the people clung to the potate
as the chief and principal means of sustenance ;
and it was greatly to be desired that the clinging
to the land by the small farmers for the miserable
sustenance that they got out of it should give place to a
desire to seek a better and more remunerative return. He
thought the bill would help on emigration to a gieat ex-
tent, and that he looked upon as one o
yits hstil REst,
Y3§io44. _ tL_

Mr. GLADSTONE pointed out that the present amend
went ruled nothing whatever with respect to the scale.
The committee on the previous night voted substantially
that loss through eviction was to be taken into account.
The measure to be taken into account would be con
sidered when the committee came to the scale.
Lord JOHN MANNERS said it was utterly impossible foi
the committee to consider the amendment proposed by
Her Majesty's Government unless they had due notice
As the bill proceeded they found amendments proposed
by the Government which would have the effect of per-
petuating and stereotyping the worst evils in the relation-
ship of landlord and tenant in Ireland.
Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE called attention to the circum-
stance that in 20 years there had been 30 land bills
introduced, and only three had passed. The only land
bill which would be acceptable in Ireland, was
one which in the first place comprised security
of tenure, and in the next place restrictions on arbitrary
evictions. He argued that the right of occupation, although
grudgingly acknowledged by the landlord, was practically
acted upon. The present bill, or one like it, embodying
this particular clause, was not only a necessity for Ire-
land, but unavoidable. In the bill of 1852, which had
the names of three great Conservative statesmen at the
back, Sir Joseph Napier, Mr. Whiteside, and Lord Mayo,
there was a retrospective clause, giving compensation for2s
year's back. That principle was sanctioned not only by
the Government of that day, but by three successive
Ministries, and by great majorities in the House of Com-
mons. It was, however, quietly put to sleep in the House
of Lords. He disagreed with the member for Lincoln-
shire "(Mr. Chaplin) that they wanted more English
institutions in Ireland. He thought the Irish customs
were excellent for their purpose ; the only thing he wished
was for English money. If they wanted to legislate foi
Ireland they must know the circumstances of the country
and they must protect the small holder. He held
that Ireland was a country for small, and not large,
tenancies.
Dr. BALL said the alteration which had been made in
the amendment by the Prime Minister met one serious
objection which was made to the amendment as it origin-
ally stood, but it did not meet the objection founded upon
principle. The words as they then stood in the clause
were " Having regard to improvements other than perma-
nent, and to the loss sustained by a tenant on quitting
his holding." In these words the Government did
not ostentatiously put forward a new principle in regard
to landlord and tenant. Ho condemned the doctrine that
a tenant should be taught to regard occupancy as pro-
perty. This principle was dangerous to the measure and
dangerous in the feelings which it would excite elsewhere.
The principle was a direct declaration of hostility to the
report of a committee, on which Lord Grey had sat, two
of the present Cabinet Ministers, and two ex-Lord Chan-
cellors.

Mr. GREGORY declared that the real cause of discontent
in connection with agriculture in Ireland was the tyranny
exercised under notices to quit ; and one of the advan-
tages of the clause would be to remove this source of evil
as much as possible. He believed the clause was the
cardinal and first point of the bill.
After some remarks from Mr. CORRANCE,
Mr. DELAHUNTY reminded the committee that unless
the bill were framed so as to give satisfaction to the Irish
tenantry, it would only serve to aggravate the evils of
which they complained. He had had great experience of
the management of property, and he assured the commit-
tee that whenever he could get a tenant at a fair rent he
let him have the farm for a long period very readily
because it tended to the improvement of the farm. In
order to make Ireland prosperous, there must be
equal laws in all respects. Trade and manufactures
had been stamped out, and there was only the land to fall
back upon. All parties were struggling for its possession;
and it appeared that the House was legislating for a
scramble for the land. If they continued to legislate for Ire-
land as other than an integral part of Great Britain, she would
separate. He was desirous of a permanent union instead
of a false and disastrous one. He thought it must be a
"blessed union" that had tended so much to decrease the
population. The graziers and farmers did not exceed
the shoemakers. (Great laughter.) His belief was that
the "manufacture question" would come on eventually.
Ireland could be ruled by a silken thread, but no amount
of coercion or injustice would prevent the people breaking
their bonds when they could. (The hon. gentleman's
speech was very amusing in some passages, and created
roars of laughter.)
Mr. C. FORTESCUE congratulated the hon. and learned
member for the University of Dublin on the moderation
and candour with which he had criticised the proposals of
the Government, and then defended the opinions of his
right hon. friend from the attacks that had
been made on them. The Government contended,
as they had always contended, that in the . present
state of Ireland, to attempt to meet the difficulty by a mere
system of compensation for improvement would not meet
the case. They had to deal with a bad system and
the best mode of, in some degree, ,meeting
it was by the proposals made in the bill. They
were not ashamed of the proposition of compensa-
tion .for loss of occupancy. They never disguised that
part of the. bill, and he confidently recommended the
clause in its present form. There is no priiitiple involved
now which was not discussed last night, and he did hope
the House would now come to a division on theproposition
before it.

Mr. HENLEY complained that the Government had not
put into the bill that which they really meant, but had
come down to the House with words which they had
inserted in the clause without the slightest notice. He
believed that the bill would not come up to the expecta-
tions of its proposers.

Sir G. COLTHURST said the Government had introduced
two amendments in the bill, which had altogether altered
its character. The separation of compensation for occu-
pancy and compensation for improvement, and the omis-
sion of clause 16, made a most material change in the
provisions of the bill. The omitting of the 16th clause
took away every privilege that the landlord had, and by
the amendments they were making to the third clause
they were inflicting pains and penalties on him for doing
that which he liked with his own. He should vote
against the proposed amendment.
Colonel BARTELLOTT thought it was the duty of the Go-
vernment to substantiate the grounds on which their
last propositions had been brought forward which they
had not yet done. He believed that the real effect of that
provision of the bill would be to induce men with money
and capital to get rid of their tenants, and those who
could not do that would remain a burden on the land. He
was one who wished to do all he possibly could for the
benefit of Ireland, but he thought that the taking the
power out of the hands of the landlord and putting such
an instrument as was described in this bill into the hands
of the tenant would be to do a great and irretrievabl.
mischief.

Mr. SAMUELSON was of opinion that, although the bill
was not calculated to secure the approbation and approVal
of the Cork Farmers' Club, it would be received with
gratitude by the great majority of the Irish people. He
should give the Government his warmest suppOrt in their
endeavours to make the bill as perfect as possible,
and therefore he should vote for the amendment pro•
posed by the right hon. gentleman at the head of the
Government.

Mr. GLADSTONE in the course of his reply said he
objected to the consolidation of estates in Ireland.
There was a population on the land, and the
right of that population to a subsistence whdre
they were willing to discharge their duties in
labouring for it, ought to have equitable consideration.
The point of loss had been explained, but it could not
have been better explained than it was by the member for
Carlow. The loss of improvements was something, the
loss of future prospects was great, but the greatest loss of
all was the loss of daily bread.
Mr. HARDY admitted with the right hon. gentleman
at the head of her Majesty's Government the right of the
people to life and subsistence, but that provision was not
fixed upon the landlord as regarded his tenant, but upon
the State. According to the principle as laid down by
the Prime Minister the obligation was imposed upon the
landlord to provide for another man's daily bread.
Mr, Moore and Sir G. Jenkinson having addressed the
committee very briefly,

Mr. GLAUST.ONE, in reply to the remarks of Mr. Hardy
said that his argument was entirely to this point, that
there was a loss independent and beyond the profits of
occupation as they were understood commonly in this
country, and that loss in Ireland, and under the peculiar
circumstances of Ireland was the loss of livelihood.
As to- the liability of the landlord to find a livelihood for
thetenant he never said one word.
Colonel STUART KNox thought this was the very worst
clause in the bill, and he hoped that the committee would
not sanction it.

The committee then divided -on the question whethe2
the words to be inserted should stand part of the bill.
149_1911111.1/6147.-43V, ; 34908