upon the subject; the hon. Gentleman, therefore, would see that the Bill was of a simple character. MR. BARING inquired whether the powers were given to the Governor General, or to the Governor General in Council, to make regulations under the Act? MR. E STANHOPE observed, that the phrase used of the Governor General in Council was the one always made use of in Acts of Parliament. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT was surprised that this Bill should be taken so late at night. It was not the annual Mutiny Bill for India-that had been repealed. This was a new Bill, and he did not think that it should be taken at that time. COSTS TAXATION (HOUSE OF COMMONS) BILL. On Motion of Mr. RAIKES, Bill to amend "The House of Commons Costs Taxation Act, 1847," ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAIKES and Mr. MOWBRAY. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 190.] HOUSE OF LORDS, Tuesday, 20th May, 1879. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-Second Reading- * MR. ONSLOW thought that some further information should be furnished by the Under Secretary of State for India with regard to the state of this Marine. The Indian Marine was abolished some years ago, on the understanding that Her Majesty's Navy should undertake all its then duties, and the Indian Government agreed to pay about £70,000 a-year towards the expenses of the Navy. Now, it seemed that the Indian Marine was to be established on its old footing; and it INDIA-DISTURBANCES IN BOMBAY. appeared that many of the duties which ought, in his opinion, to be performed by Her Majesty's Navy were to be thrown upon the Indian Marine. He thought that they should be told the reason for this expenditure, and the necessity for an Indian Marine co-existent with Her Majesty's Navy in Indian waters. If this Bill were to be extended to a great extent, he thought it would be in the interests of the Indian Exchequer that it should be opposed. MR. DILLWYN thought that such a Bill as this should be taken in a full House. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER consented to the adjournment of the debate. Question put, and agreed to. OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION. THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I wish to put a Question to the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India, of which I have given him private Notice, on a subject of great importance, mention of which has again been made in the newspapers this morning. For some days past, very strange reports have appeared in the newspapers of grave disturbances which have taken place in the Presidency of Bombay, in the Deccan, and of incendiary fires near Poonah; and, in the papers of yesterday, there was a more detailed account. reported that the magistrate's court, and other public buildings, had been fired, that large bands of armed Dacoits were marauding the country, and It was Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at great loss of property has ensued. Two of the clock. Lastly-which is a very remarkable circumstance-a manifesto is said to have been put out by some of these bands, in which there are not only statements made as to the great distress of the country, the severe pressure of taxes on the people, but a reward of 1,000 rupees is placed on the head of the Governor, Sir Richard Temple, unless he complies 795 a with their demands. The state of things | was much to be regretted; but as he is no doubt serious. It is impossible believed this step was founded on certo say quite what it means, and what tain misapprehensions, he would now causes have produced it-whether these endeavour to remove them. The Bill, if are merely armed bands, or bands acting amended in accordance with his views, in concert and sympathy with the popu- would be practically the same as that lation; but I believe that it is al- introduced by Mr. Mulholland, the Memmost unprecedented in Indian history ber for Downpatrick, in the other House in our day that such a manifesto should some time ago, but which did not reach be issued threatening the life of the this House. The Bill, so amended, Governor of one of the British Pro- would not work any alteration in the vinces. I shall be glad to hear from present state of the law affecting land my noble Friend, Whether or not these in Ireland. It would simply be a deconsiderable statements are correct, and whether he claratory Bill, intended to clear up a point which caused can throw any light upon the subject? amount of useless and vexatious litigation in Ireland. At the time when the Land Act of 1870 was passed, the Government considered that in legalizing the usages of the Province of Ulster, they were not only legalizing tenant right in the case of tenants from year to holding by lease. But after the Land Act became law, it was questioned whether this was so, and more than one decision was given in opposition to the views of the Government. He himself believed that those views were correctan opinion in which he was fortified by the expressions of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, and of the noble and learned Lord the then Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord O'Hagan); and since the Bill had been laid on the Table of the House, one of the Judges of Assizes in Ireland had given judgment in a case in the same direction as that to which the Bill pointed. The Amendments which he wished to introduce into the Bill were of two kinds. There were certain words in the Bill which, if they were allowed to remain unqualified, would extend the operation of the measure beyond the Province of Order of the Day for the Second Read-Ulster. The words to which he referred ing, read. VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: There can be no doubt that great distress prevails in the Deccan; and I have, in private letters, received accounts of that distress. It is also true that within some weeks past, to a certain extent, the Dacoits have committed numerous robberies and other outrages; but I have no know-year, but also in the case of tenants ledge of the particular transactions reported in the newspapers within the last few days-though I think them not unlikely, inasmuch as it has been reported that bands of Dacoits have been traversing the Provinces and committing | outrages to a certain extent. Seeing such detailed accounts in the newspapers, I telegraphed this morning to the Governor of Bombay asking for information; but I have not as yet received a reply. The latest accounts which I received by last mail conveyed the intelligence that although bands of Dacoits had been traversing the country, the Deccan was quieter, and that things seemed to be settling down. TENANT RIGHT (IRELAND) BILL. (NO. 35.) SECOND READING. were not within the scope of the PreTHE EARL OF BELMORE, in moving amble of the Bill, which expressly pointed that the Bill be now read a second time, out that the Bill was intended to apply said, he desired to explain what the in the case of the usages of Ulster. He Bill proposed to do, and endeavour to proposed, therefore, that all such words remove some misapprehensions which in the 2nd section of the Bill as would existed with regard to it, and then he extend the operation of the measure bewould explain some two or three Amend-yond the Province of Ulster, as well as ments which he desired to introduce into it in Committee, if the Bill should reach that stage. The noble Viscount sitting near him (Viscount Lifford) had given Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the Bill. That, he thought, The Earl of Carnarvon the words "or other usages analogous thereto," to be found further on, should be struck out of the Bill. He had no desire to legislate in the dark for the other Provinces, and it would only lead to confusion to introduce this custom in places where it did not previously exist. His next Amendment was of a different character. The 2nd clause of the Bill ran at present as follows: : "In the case of any claim under the 1st section of the principal Act in respect of a holding which, if it had been held from year to year, would have been subject to the usages known as the Ulster tenant-right, the persons entitled to sustain such claim shall be entitled to do so, notwithstanding that the said holding may be held under a lease that shall have expired." To these words he proposed to add the following: “Unless the landlord shall give satisfactory proof that it has not been the custom on the holding, or on the estate of which such holding forms a part, to allow the benefit of the said custom or usages at the expiration of such lease or leases." A judgment by Lord Mansfield had more than once been quoted, in which that eminent Judge had laid down Не and he asked him whether he thought (The Earl of Belmore.) "that custom should override covenant." This principle, though it might VISCOUNT LIFFORD, in moving be correct law, should not, he main- that the Bill be read a second time tained, be allowed to stand in the way this day six months, said: I have of the measure before their Lordships. heard it reported that it was said in To those familiar only with the customs "another place" by a Conservative of a of England and Scotland, it was difficult Tenant Right Bill introduced by another to understand the operation of the Land Conservative-"This Bill is not to be Act; but their Lordships would under- considered harmless on account of its instand that, in the case of Irish tenant significance." If my noble Friend will right, they were not dealing with one not be offended, I will say the same of interest only, but with two-namely, the Bill before your Lordships. If you the interest of the landlord, and that of will look back to the history of Ireland, the tenant, which was legalized by the you will see that it is, with few excepAct of 1870. Under the Act, as he tions, a course of sacrifice of great prinunderstood it, the landlord had a right, ciples for temporary and often paltry at the close of the lease, to re-consider ends. This Bill is not an exception. It the value of the holding, and to re-let it proposes to sacrifice a great principle of at the full market price; and the tenant, English law, laid down by Lord Manson the other hand, having the right to field, that a custom shall not override a compensation if he were disturbed, or covenant for some advantage, which no to remain at a fair rent. His noble one has asked for, about which few Friend (Viscount Lifford), last year, people care, and which, as seems to me, had referred to the case of Lord Leitrim; is not altogether patent on the surface but it was well known that that noble of the Bill. The first case, to the circumLord had a good deal of litigation with stances of which the Bill before your his tenants, and, no doubt, had some- Lordships would apply, was a curious times to pay a large amount in compen-case-"M'Noon v. Beauclerc "—in the sation. The amount of compensation, whether it was small or large, did not affect the principle of the case at all. He did not think that if his noble Friend succeeded in his opposition to the Bill he would improve the position of the landlords of Ireland. His noble Friend had had a very long experience as an active landlord in the North of Ireland; County of Down. There a very old lease of land close to the landlord's residence expired. The landlord wished to take the land, or some of it, into his own hands; and the County Court Judge awarded £1,400 against the landlord as tenant right, or something about £20 an acre. This dropped through, as I understand, from some informality. Then came a case of "Austin v. Scott,' in the County of Derry, which was decided by Chief Justice Monahan in accordance with the principle of this Bill, but was appealed, and the appeal was not heard in consequence of the death of one of the parties. Then came a case— Lord Ranfurly and Murphy-in Tyrone, and that was decided by the County Court Judge in accordance with this Bill; but that decision was reversed on appeal. It is, therefore, unfair to state in the Preamble of this Bill that doubts have arisen, because in no instance has a case been determined in accordance with this Bill, and one has been determined against it. Notwithstanding, it may perhaps be said, as it has been said, that what your Lordships are asked to do now was done by the Act of 1870. If so, which of your Lordships was aware that you were then abrogating without protest, without notice, a fundamental principle of English law? Judge Barry, then Attorney General, said, in supporting the Bill of 1870 "No human being ever felt disposed to deny that if persons entered into a contract it was their duty to abide by it. Nobody ever questioned the doctrine that if a man took land for a certain number of years under a lease, he was bound to quit at the end of the term without notice." Sir Roundell Palmer, now Lord Selborne, said "The retrospective part "[of the 3rd clause] "applicable to present tenancies, left all leases for fixed terms exactly as they stood by law, so that there would be no claim against the landlord upon the termination of any existing lease."-[3 Hansard, cc. 1536.] to be in favour of the tenant, failing proof to the contrary. But the Land Act, while it did not give so much to the tenant as that would have given, looking to the whole of Ireland, went far beyond it in the invasion of the rights of property, and that on no fixed principle whatever; so that to a people brought up as the Irish people were, half-a-century ago, to believe that the land was theirs and not the owner's, it was like giving blood to a tiger, though the Irish people have, for the most part, endured the trial with a marvellous patience. Still, here are some of their demands which, if this Bill be passed, will, of course, apply to the termination of a lease "The Act of 1870 has been tried now for three years, and its very framers must admit that it has utterly failed to accomplish the end for which it was passed-namely, the protection of the homes and properties of the Irish farmers. Therefore, it takes its place among the other abortive attempts that have been made for the last 16 years to solve the Irish difficulty. Nothing will or can meet the case but fixity and valued rents, with right to sell." At a meeting held in Maryborough in 1873-there were 10,000 people present the following resolution was passed :— "That we insist on perpetuity of tenure, valuation of rents, and free sale, as the only just settlement of the Land Question." Let the landlord do what he likes with his own demesne; but one of the speakers denied that the land in the occupation of the tenant was his. The speaker asked "Is not the whole country in a state of dismay, irritation, and alarm, because of a Land Act, which is as huge a piece of treachery as The electors asked for an Act which would secure was ever permitted to see the light? them in their tenures, which would give them a right to property erected by their industry, and which would enable them to either hold, bequeath, or sell that property at pleasure, and what is the nature of the Land Act which these Representatives have had the assurance to dictate to them, and as to which Bumbledom has vomited so much? Why, it is an act of treachery, which has hardly a single redeeming clause annexed to it." These are the statements on which your Lordships passed the Act of 1870; and if your Lordships were to pass this Bill, you would make a greater inroad on the principle of English law and English equity than this Act ever did. And now I hope you will bear with me while I refer to the Land Act itself, with a view to showing the danger, the injury to Ireland, of further extension of it. In the first place, I am ready, in the barren, but somewhat populous district in which I have read enough to show your LordI live, loyally to make the best of it. ships that the violation of the laws of There is much that is valuable in it, property has produced its natural effect, especially the "Bright Clauses." A Land and that the scent of spoliation has enAct was necessary; and I have, long be-couraged demands of which the framers fore Mr. Gladstone took it up, urged in your Lordships' Committees that the tenant on eviction should be compensated for everything he or his predecessors had expended on the land, the presumption Viscount Lifford of the Land Act never dreamed. And now my noble Friend steps in with his little drop of blood, infinitesimally small and worthless in the opinion of the Irish tenant, but, in principle, a greater breach of the laws of property than anything in the Land Act, and lays it in the track to what? Here are the words of a man who, in his outspoken, fearless utterances, was a truer friend to the Irish tenant than any of those who cajoled him or deceived him-the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. He said— "Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to go further, and to say that this custom should be extended to districts and estates upon which it does not now prevail. To that I reply, unhesitatingly, that if we begin de novo I cannot conceive any worse system upon which land can be held than that which is known as the Ulster custom. What is that custom? Why, as I said the other day, it is simply a device for locking up the capital, which otherwise ought to be spent upon the soil. The hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. MacCarthy) spoke upon the question of political economy in connection with the matter. In a former debate, I ventured to tender the advice that the political economist had better hold his peace in a discussion of this question from the point of view of the tenant-right advocates; because, from the point of view of political economy, what can be worse than withdrawing capital which ought to be employed in the cultivation of the soil, and not merely locking it up--that would be bad enough-but removing it altogether from the land? A man comes into a farm under the Ulster custom. He pays down all the money he has, all he can collect from his family and friends, and all he can borrow from usurers and others, and what becomes of the money? When he leaves the farm the money is, perhaps, taken to the Colonies, or it is invested in business, miles away from the land upon which it ought to be spent; and I cannot conceive anybody arguing, from the politico-economical point of view, in favour of the adoption of this Ulster tenant custom where it does not prevail. So much for the first part of the Bill; and when I am asked why the Government do not address themselves to its principles, I say that the principle of this Bill is pure, undiluted, unmitigated Communism." This is Ulster tenant right as regards the tenants, and if it occurred at the end of a lease such would be the tenants' position. As to the landlord, it is by no means so unfavourable, for he gets all his arrears of rent out of the unfortunate incoming tenant's money; and the tenant having invested so much is adstrictus gleba, and cannot throw up his farm, as I hear so many tenants are doing now in England. But is that a wholesome state of things as regards the economy of Ireland as a nation? There is only one point more to which I would call your Lordships' attention, and that is the increased power which the latter part of the Bill puts into the hands of the County Court Judges. These gentlemen are, I VOL. CCXLVI. [THIRD SERIES.] am sure, all honest; some are able; a few learned. But when most of them were appointed, their office was not nearly so important as it became under the Land Act. In deciding land claims, they follow different modes. One gentleman takes, as the Act intends, the custom of the estate; another takes the custom of the district generally; and a third decided in three ways, for in one case he gave £20 an acre against the landlord; in another he said (page 29, Evidence before Lords' Committee) that he would give what a farm would sell for in open market; and in a more recent case he laid down the law that a small proprietor should be treated differently from a large one. The landlord must agree to whatever rents the County Court Judge chooses to fix, or pay sometimes the feesimple value of his land applotted on such vague principles. I look on this Bill as a spoliation of the landowner, whose ancestor granted lands with covenants for quiet surrender, and probably at a low rent, in consideration of certain works to be done by the tenant instead of a high rent, as bad for the incoming tenant, but most mischievous to Ireland, as increasing the hope of further revolutionary changes, and setting at defiance the plainest laws of political economy. Amendment moved, to moved, to leave out (now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")-(The Viscount Lifford.) THE EARL OF LONGFORD said, he had charge of a similar Bill last Session, when the noble Viscount took alarm at some provisions which were not in the Bill, as he had done just now, and stated his objections so forcibly that the Bill was thrown out. The Bill did not contain any of the revolutionary measures of which the noble Viscount seemed so apprehensive; it referred only to a special class of cases, and it could not be extended to others. It was not brought forward by a farmers' club or a tenants' league, to obtain by surprise and clamour that to which they were not entitled ; but it was promoted by large proprietors in the North of Ireland, who examined the Bill with prepossessions against it, and, after scrutiny, came to the conclusion that the claim of the tenants was just, and that it would be just and wise to apply it. If it were said that a tenant who 2 D |