Now, I am not concerned to argue whether the triumvirate would be right or wrong in doing what I said; but I do maintain that the most honest men in the world may do this under the Bill as it stands, and that, with the most perfect desire to do justice, the result would be such as I have described, and I must say that it would not be surprising if they did. What I want to know is, are you going to leave this matter in doubt; are you going to content yourselves with the declaration made in this House that the tenant right and the rent have no connection, that nothing is taken out of the property of the landlord; or are you going to put something into the Bill which will remove all possibility of its being done in the future? I do not say this merely in the interests of the landlord, but in the interests of the tenant also. Remember, you are creating a property which is to come into the market. You are dealing, not merely with educated landlords, but also with a tenantry of whom many are uneducated. Let it, then, be known what is the thing to be bought and sold, and do not let there be any ambiguities, doubts, and uncertainties which would lead to renewed agitation, heart-burning, and new legislation hereafter. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said that it was not intended by this right of free sale to diminish the fair rent of the landlord, and I ask him if he will put words to make that perfectly clear in the Bill; and, if he will, every criticism I have to offer on this point is at once answered, and is at an end. I should be sorry Earl Cairns

"As to the other portion of the tenant right, is it true that the occupation element, the goodwill element, must be taken out of the landlord's

fair rent? I utterly deny that. We do not admit it for a moment. We believe that the goodwill element of tenant right grows up inevitably, side by side, in conjunction with, and outside of, the landlord's rent; that it is not carved out of the landlord's rent; and that it does not cut down the landlord's rent."

Now, I wish to know whether the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal adheres to that view of the case. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said he would rather have the responsibility of this measure than be in the position of the Opposition to criticize a measure which they do not reject. The Opposition are quite able to judge for themselves of the course it is their duty to take without my noble and learned Friend's advice, and without his sympathy. Therefore, we are quite satisfied with his view of the matter, and perhaps I may be allowed to return his compliment, and say I prefer the position of the Opposition to the position of those who have the responsibility of this measure. I am not going to prophecy, but I know what are the natural results of a measure of this kind. Human nature will be changed in its course if it does not stop all improvements made by landlords in Ireland. Human nature will alter if this measure does not build up a wall of separation between the landlord and the tenant. I do not know whether it will turn landlords into rentchargers; but it will at once put an end to every motive which has hitherto existed for a kindly interchange of kindly feeling, good-will, friendship, and fellowship as between landlord and tenant. Another result of the measure does not

require prophecy; for we have had so much proof of what has happened since 1870 that we know the same thing must go on. Up to 1870 tenants had no legal property in their holdings that creditors could touch; but after the passing of the Land Act in that year, the tenants found that they could give security for money, and the result was that many of them got over head and ears in debt. Still larger numbers will get into debt when this Bill is passed. In Ulster, where this custom has grown up, and where they have had to pay for it, the tenants know the value of money and of their holdings; they are careful and thrifty men, and they do not get into debt; but when you suddenly throw this valuable property at the head of all the tenants in Ireland, they will be intoxicated with the possession of that security, which they never had before, and they will fall still more into the hands of the money-lender and the usurer. You know also that those who emigrate now are the best men. What are you going to do? You are going to give them a property which they can at once convert into money for the purpose of taking them away. I say that the effect of this Bill will be to make changes which will take some of the best men out of Ireland. Errors and mistakes are made frequently which cannot be remedied. We, however, are not the Executive Government. The Executive Government have the confidence of the House of Commons, and, having that confidence, they have partly encouraged and partly supported the system of agitation which has prevailed, and they have failed to suppress that agitation by the means which they could command. In fact, they have brought about a state of things which we all deplore, and they have thought it right to attempt to satisfy agitators by presenting them with this Bill. That is a heavy responsibility. But once this has been done by the Executive Government, possessing as they do the confidence of the House of Commons, the case becomes one in which, if this House were to take upon itself to reject the measure, it would, in its turn, assume the responsibility which at present rests with the Government, and which is a responsibility which I do not envy. It is for these reasons that I am glad your Lordships are not going to come to an

issue upon the second reading of this Bill. I have no wish to see the Bill amended in any way which would alter its main lines and features; but it now contains excrescences and inconsistencies which mar the regularity of those features. In these respects, then, there are important Amendments which I would be glad to see introduced into the Bill; and when that has been done I believe that this House will have taken a course which is consistent with the dignity of the House, with our duty as public men, and with the best traditions of the Constitution of this country.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, it is not necessary that I should detain your Lordships at this late hour (1 o'clock) for any long period, as my noble Friend the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has so fully stated the case of the Government in connection with this Bill. On reviewing the whole of the debate, I think we have no reason to be dissatisfied; but, at the same time, some things have been uttered by the noble and learned Earl who has just sat down (Earl Cairns) which it is my duty on behalf of the Government to notice. It seems, judging by the tone of this debate, that it is admitted on all sides that there is a very grave emergency in Ireland, and that it is absolutely necessary that some measure of this kind should be introduced and passed, and I think that the Bill is founded upon the only lines which the circumstances of the case justify. The noble and learned Earl opposite, who made a very moderate and wise speech, indulged at the end of it, as was natural, in some slight Party recrimination. The noble and learned Earl said, in effect-"Here is a Bill the necessity of which is admitted; but whence arises the necessity?" And the noble Earl answers "From the conduct of the Government." I undertake, however, to demonstrate to your Lordships that to say that this measure has been rendered necessary by what has taken place in Ireland during the last few months is perfectly preposterous. What did the noble and learned Earl himself say in this House on the 3rd of August last year? He said that any statesmanlike measure introduced for the benefit of the people of Ireland would receive his respectful consideration. [Earl CAIRNS : Hear, hear!] The noble and learned Earl added that he thought a measure [Second Night.]

T 2

Bill by my noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll); and I must, therefore, take occasion to refer to what was said by my noble Friend in the year 1870. The noble Duke had not then the same objection to the extension of the Ulster

EARL CAIRNS: But I did not express any opinion as to their merits.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have not said that the noble and learned Earl expressed any approval of any particular scheme. All I can say is that we who sat on this Bench, when that speech was delivered during the discussion on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, said "Earl Cairns perceives that there must be a large land measure for Ireland, and knows that it must be based upon an extension of the Ulster Custom ". the principle of the present Bill, for from it flows the greater part of its provisions. The noble and learned Earl now says that "After all, this Bill is an embodiment of the three F's;" and as regards two of the "F's" I quite agree that it is. But fixity of tenure is not in this Bill. The noble and learned Earl compared what is in this Bill with copyhold tenure; and, if I did not misunderstand him, he said that in copyhold tenure there is forfeiture. Now, of course, the noble and learned Earl knows well what copyhold tenure is. But my understanding of it was this-that the landlord may recover his just dues from the copyholder; but so long as there is an heir, there can be no forfeiture, as a copyhold is an estate of inheritance. In the absence of an heir to take, the copyhold escheats to the lord. I always supposed that what constituted the fixity of tenure in copyholds was that the heir has an absolute right to be admitted on the Court rolls. But under this Bill there are distinct cases in which the landlord will recover possession of the land-e.g., upon a breach of a covenant, and the landlord recovers absolute possession without any power in the tenant to regain possession. Then the whole class of future tenants will be in a different condition from the present tenants. When we come to discuss the Bill in Committee I think we shall find that the Bill does not contain fixity of tenure. I must say I was somewhat surprised at the attitude now assumed towards the

The Earl of Kimberley

expressed. The noble Duke, in a speech on the Bill of 1870, used these words

"The noble and learned Lord (referring to Lord Cairns), who assents to the Ulster Custom, protests violently against the 3rd clause of the Bill, which gives a position to tenants outside Ulster precisely the same in character as that of tenants in Ulster."

Now, it is curious that upon this subject there is a great deal of discontent in Ulster, and exactly in proportion as the landlords have been able by rules to curtail the Ulster Custom is there dissatisfaction among the Ulster tenants. So much discontent, indeed, prevails that towards the close of the last Parliament a measure was brought forward by Mr. Macartney, which contained three remarkable clauses. The Bill proposed to abolish office rules altogether, and it actually provided that leases should be dealt with. My noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) is not present, or, no doubt, he would be surprised to make that discovery. My noble Friend said that no attempt had been made to interfere with leases until it was attempted in that Bill. He evidently never heard of this Bill. It is rather remarkable that an Ulster Member should bring in this Bill. The Bill was read the second time in the House of Commons just a month before the Dissolution, and with the concurrence of the Government; and so important did they think it that, at the time of the General Election, a letter was addressed by Sir Stafford Northcote to Viscount Castlereagh on the subject. In that letter, the then Leader of the House of Commons said it had been reported to him that the Government was hostile to Ulster tenant right, and that they were not wholly disinclined to support it, but, if possible, disposed to reverse that policy. A direct contradiction was given to this, and it was stated that the Land Act had been accepted, as they were bound to accept it, honestly. We imagine that we have sufficiently guarded in this Bill the fair and just privileges of the landlord quite as much as they would have been by the Bill which was approved by the late Govern

ment. It has been suggested by the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) that the Bill can be so administered that the landlord's interest may gradually disappear; but that could not be unless the Court utterly disregarded the interest of the landlord, and the Bill says that the Court shall have regard to the interest of the landlord as well as that of the tenant. It may be possible to make the duty of the Court more easy by instruction, if words can be found; but if the Court were to act in such a manner as has been suggested, it would be guilty of a gross dereliction of duty. Tenant right in this case is no landlord's wrong. I would ask those noble Lords who have property in Ireland, and who have spoken in such strong terms of this Bill, whether it is not obvious, when you have found a principle which, whatever may be said against it theoretically, has worked for a long time with, I will not say perfect, but with considerable success in a particular part of Ireland, that we should extend that principle to the rest of the country? If we had a tolerable state of things in the rest of Ireland, I should not say "Let us extend the principle;" but the state of things in the rest of Ireland is perfectly intolerable. The relations between landlord and tenant, who are the principal classes constituting the great mass of the population, are such that no Government which had any regard to its duty could shrink from bringing in and asking Parliament to pass any measure likely to create a better state of things. A noble Marquess, not now in the House (the Marquess of Salisbury), said that this was a measure of pure and simple confiscation. But when they knew that what the majority of the House chose to call confiscation was inevitable, what was the use of calling it by such a name? The noble Earl the late Governor General of India (the Earl of Lytton), in the long essay he delivered last night-and it was the only portion of that essay which was remarkable-said

"This may be largely beneficial. I do not regard it with misgiving, because it is confisca tion, because confiscation may be necessary.” Now, I think if this measure could be proved to be confiscation all the hard words applied to it would be justified. But the fact is that "confiscation," as used in debate, is a Parliamentary term, and

does not mean what it professes. There are many other matters which have been referred to, but on which I need not touch; but I must allude to the speech of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne), who took so completely a landlord's view of the situation. I suppose many of us were astonished that anyone, much more a great Irish landlord, should say that the question of improvements was a vexed question, except, of course, in the sense that it is vexatious to hear it so often argued; for the fact is beyond all dispute that by far the most of the improvements in Ireland have been made by the tenants. It is astonishing to me that the Bill should have been branded as a monstrous attempt to confiscate the property of the landlord, when the fact is, as has been shown by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, that the very essence of the measure is an attempt to save the landlord's property, by rescuing it from the peril with which it is threatened. I heard my noble Friend the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) say-"You think, by a measure of this kind, to quell agrarian rebellion." Well, we do. You may either quell it by the bayonet and grape-shot or by remedial measures. I have said so much about the noble Marquess's speech, because I regard him as one who has great knowledge of the subject and great ability, which I much regretted to see applied as he has applied it to this subject. He throws great light upon it; but he does not bring that fair consideration of the matter on both sides which is more necessary in Ireland than anywhere else, if you are to have good relations between the two classes. Criticisms on a measure of this kind we must expect, and hard words will be lavished on those who have this most responsible and, in some respects, most ungrateful task imposed upon them. The Government, however, have no reason to complain of the general tone of the criticisms to which the Bill has been subject, and we only ask the House to admit that there is a necessity for passing the second reading of a measure based on these principles, and I hope the House will also be guided by the wise advice of the noble and learned Earl who has just sat down, not to interfere in Committee with the main lines of the measure.

[Second Night.]