Page images

was an additional reason for doubting the need of State-aided emigration and reclamation of waste lands, of the advantages of which they were in both cases equally dubious. Their report concluded with the following significant remarks:

"We regard the present condition of affairs as a symptom of deep-seated disorder in the body politic. . . . If we are right in maintaining that grievances exist for which the present law provides no remedy, justice requires that a remedy should be provided, whatever may have been the conduct of individuals, and however widely the example set by them may have been followed. We are not careful to answer the objection that legislation under these circumstances is legislation under the influence of panic. It is to the refusal of justice, through dread of consequences, that the imputation of panic appears more appropriate. . . . What should be done if, after all just grievance is removed, discontent continues, and something more is asked than justice, is not hard to say. The experience of legislation in a free community seems to prove that no such consummation is to be apprehended. It is far more frequently found that even an incomplete measure of justice will succeed for a time in stilling the most violent agitation.

"The gravity of the present occasion does indeed require that the remedy now to be proposed for an admitted grievance should be complete. We wish to place on record our decided opinion that unless the measure is a full and exhaustive one, going to the root of the whole matter and settling it permanently, it would be better not to interfere with the question at all. We are able to point to evidence that a complete measure of justice, though it may not be nearly all that is demanded by the more extreme, will bear along with it a more than usually good promise of acceptance. Nothing is more noticeable in the immense mass of evidence we have taken than the general modification of the tone of those who feel themselves aggrieved by the existing law, and the almost complete absence of demands for measures of confiscation and of proposals tending to create antipathy between class and class."

But whatever were the intentions of the Government, they were kept thoroughly secret, and so long as the Coercion Bills were still before Parliament not a word transpired as to the proposals of the Ministry. On the very day (March 21), however, that the Arms Bill received Royal Assent, Mr. Gladstone took advantage of a question relative to the state of public business to announce that the Irish Land Bill would be introduced before the Easter recess, and as soon as the Candahar debate was disposed of and the Budget unfolded. In the interval rumours and forecasts of the contents of the coming Bill were rife. The Daily Telegraph declared that only on the question of "fair rents,” to Irish tenants, was there any unanimity of opinion amongst men of all parties. The other two F's-free sale and fixity of tenurewere alike open to objections. If all landlords, it maintained, were obliged to accept fair rents, and if compensation for disturbance,


provided in the Act of 1870, were extended to the tenants, and full payment for unexhausted improvements secured to them, it would seem hard to deny the landlord his right of eviction. The Irish Liberal organs were pretty unanimous in declaring that if the Bill were merely an attempt to patch up the existing system, and to remedy some minor defects of the Act of 1870, the Irish people would scout it as an insult. They demanded full recognition of the tenant's right of occupancy, absolute protection from arbitrary evictions and unjust rents, and the power to dispose of his interest in his own property. In a word, they claimed nothing less than the three F's, with a full provision for the speedy creation of a peasant proprietary, and the removal of all artificial restrictions as to sale and transfer of land, which caused its accumulation in the hands of a few bankrupt families, unable to sell, and equally unable to do justice to it. Any Bill falling short of this programme, they declared it to be the duty of the Irish people and their representatives to reject summarily, even though, in so doing, they might and would bring about the downfall of the Liberal Ministry. The Irish Conservative organs, especially those of Ulster, thought it not improbable Mr. Gladstone would confiscate all round; and maintained that it was the duty of the Conservative party in both Houses to protect territorial rights in Ireland, while conceding to the tenants the redress of any grievance of which they could fairly complain. In the existing relations on the Downshire and Londonderry estates, and on the estates of other great proprietors in Ulster, the Premier would find an equitable basis for legislation. The London Economist dissented alike from the bulk of both the English and Irish Liberal organs, condemning the three F's, and looking for a solution of the Irish Land Question in the multiplication of peasant proprietors. It foresaw the time when England would have to choose between holding Ireland as she holds India, or letting her go altogether. The firstnamed project could be carried out only if the English democracy would consent to make the serious pecuniary sacrifice which the setting up of a peasant proprietary on a large scale would involve ; but the tie thus established, the connection would be a binding one, and would obviate the danger of a disruption of the Empire. In like manner, Mr. Matthew Arnold, in the Nineteenth Century, though for widely different reasons condemning the cry of the three F's, refused to see in its realisation any relief to England from Irish difficulties, because ownership in tenure would then be made fundamentally different in Ireland from what it was elsewhere. He objected to novel and fanciful complications being introduced into either the ownership or the tenancy of the soil; and he recommended the appointment of a Royal Commission, composed of an English Chief Justice, an English capitalist, and an English writer, to settle the various difficulties of Ireland. The Daily News, on the other hand, holding the necessity of fixity of tenure and free sale, urged that a law which deprived a tenant of all right to

compensation for disturbance because hos rear happened to be a arrear, was unjust and mischievous. A string law roaT WIS DANALIT to prevent arbitrary increase of rent, and the iv vid v called upon to administer should be clearly and spendy had br On the day previous to that on white M. Gladstone vis unfold his message of peace to Ireland the Str.dard pabashed what professed to be the outline of the Goverment List BLS Although it was subsequently found to be THT DICHLOPMENT from the measure actually introduced it wH THT MOT BO mitted to convey a fair idea of the trim biasm of the Cabinet, and as such it is worth noticing, expecly wom this draft bore out the rumour previously Lluded so that the Lint Bill had been subjected to many amendments in the detares on the Coercion Bills.

The starting-point of the Bill, it was stated would be free tut coupled with clauses framed with a view of seeing fur reared after this the specific conditions on whith a series of fang of tenure was to be guaranteed flowed The Deere would not touch the Bright clauses of the Land An of 10 and world at nothing about the creation of peasant proprietorshipe The goposals of the Government on these other martensvolle modet in a separate measure later in the session.

[ocr errors]

The Bill would recognise permissive frity of ne lord and tenant would be enabled, whenever they might bunk rooose to do so, to establish a fixed tenancy. Ameling to the rings ment, the tenant would become a oppholden m. in the paramesWET of Irish law, would pay a fee farm rest. The form of would be fixed by the court, at intervals of out less that fruen years, and by another clause the parties might derde their ences by arbitration.

On April 7, in a speech which, according to some rivaled t most brilliant efforts, but which, acording to others, was p simple and business-like, Mr. Gladstone milded the Ginement Bill; and from all sides of the House be was Linened to w sympathetic attention; and when, after more than two both be as down, the tribute paid to his eloquence and clares me mous. He began by describing the almost insurmountable 650ties which faced an Administration when attempting to deliv this complex question. The recessity of making an emptore establish the rights of landlord and tenant in Ireland on wombe permanent basis was, however, universally acknowledged, and it was his duty to explain the solution at whith the Caliber bad arrived.


First of all be examined the grounds on which the Goverment was called on to legislate, disclaiming emphatically the alleged iniquity of the Irish Land Laws (which only differed from the English law in that they were more favourable to the tenant well as all sympathy with the extreme plans ventilated in Ireland, which, he said, constituted one of the main difficulties with which the Government had to deal, embodying as they did the principle

[ocr errors]

of public plunder. He vindicated the Irish landlords as a body from the imputations cast upon them by the Land League, but he admitted that the conduct of the few had created, or at least culminated in a state of things which called for legislative remedy. The first circumstance on which he dwelt as moving the Government was the land-hunger, or rather "land scarcity," prevailing in Ireland, which had been aggravated by bad seasons and other circumstances. He admitted also that defects had been developed in the Act of 1870, partly inherent and partly due to the action of the Lords; and, as a third reason, he urged the bad conduct of a limited number of landlords, who had exacted unjust rents and enforced them by cruel evictions. Next he discussed what he called the litter' of reports proceeding from the Richmond and Bessborough Commissions, pointing out that all the Commissioners, with one exception, agreed that it was of vital importance to institute a Court for the purpose of dealing with the differences between landlord and tenant, and that even the Richmond Commission had recommended legislative interference for the protection of tenants against arbitrary increase of rent. The question naturally divided itself into three branches-the transfer and devolution of land (with which he did not intend to deal), the relations of landlord and tenant, and the group of subjects which required advances from the Public Exchequer. With regard to the relations of landlord and tenant, he held the institution of a Court to be inevitable; but before describing the provisions of the Bill for this purpose, he maintained the policy and justice of what he described as the right of assignment or sale of tenant-right, contending that the old law of the country recognised the right of the tenant to sell whatever interest he possessed in his tenancy, which, by the Act of 1870, had become something considerable; that the Commissioners had recommended a recognition of it, and that it might be enforced without injustice to the landlord. The salient point and cardinal feature of the Bill, therefore, was to be the Court, and, after arguing the point at some length, he stated that the appeal to it would not be compulsory but optional; and he expressed his belief that many Irish tenants would, in spite of the past, prefer to come to terms with their landlord rather than go into Court. Passing to details, he stated that every tenant now existing in Ireland would have a right to go into the Court to have fixed for his holding a "judicial rent," which, when fixed, would endure for fifteen years, during which time there could be no eviction of the tenant with or without the leave of the Court, except for specific breach of certain specific covenants, or nonpayment of rent. There would be no power of resumption on the part of the landlord during that period even with the leave of the Court, and the landlord's remedy would take the form of a compulsory sale of the tenant-right. At the conclusion of the statutory term of fifteen years application might be made to the Court for a renewal of tenancy toties quoties. If it were renewed

the conditions as to eviction would malt.
have a pre-emption of the tenant- ment t
The Court, moreover, n g he HI WA
both the unlimited growth of t

Gladstone next explained in m


a "present" and a future enanor the bet PAL
that a present tenaney might se
generation if there was no lerunt.

would not disturb the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

retrospective effect of me 31 more wars Anas vom wcess of ejectment had been mensi. J 1

have the opportunity of inpearing wire Le

their tenant-right. Crinary ana

wish to invoke the assistance of the far-FLI 18k net with the right of assignment. nd me Tser etant voll lave the right of remaining under is FISTE. THE 1e would not hate the protection of the general prisons of the 3 M Partalig augmentation of rents. For example, vor the Tedant assented to an increase of rent, there would 3d 1. w 100 action of the Court: fr mder the Am the tenant, by sovesting the increased rent, would wye inng of tenure sa iñen years If he should not accept the race, be might dinot to sell bla interest, and obtain frm the andard ten times the diferenve between the increased rent and that sectied by the Court; var again he might claim empensation for disturbance in accordance with the terms settled by the Act of 1870. With regard to leases, any lease which was to be exempt from the supervision of the Act must be a "judicial lease, fixed tenancies at fee farm rents might be established by consent of landlord and tenant, but not compulsorily, and the power to contract out of the Bill would be confined to tenancies of 150%. and upwards. Describing the composition of the Court, which would also act as a Land Commission, and regulate all the proceedings of the local courts, he said it would consist of three members, one of whom must always be a Judge or an ex-Judge of the Supreme Court; and it would have power to appoint assistant commissioners, and subcommissions to sit in the provinces. Passing to the second part of the Bill, after dwelling briefly on the political and social advantages of a peasant proprietary, he stated that the Land Commission would be invested with the means and power of realizing a scheme in this direction, supplying landlords ready to sell and tenants desirous to purchase their holdings. In such cases the Commissioners would have power to advance to tenants intending to purchase, on approved security, three-fourths of the purchase money; but this advance was limited to one-half of the purchase money when the tenant agreed to pay a price to the landlord, and to hold from him at a fee farm rent, Borrowers from the Commissioners were not precluded from borrowing the remainder of the purchase money elsewhere. By an important provision

« PreviousContinue »