great success, and without those financial evils which the opponents of such legislation anticipated. The enormous advantage would be that an end would be put to the social agitation, in which lay the gravest danger of the political agitation. It was said, however, that one form of agitation would be substituted for another, and that the "no rent" movement would be set up against the Government instead of against the landlord. But it should be remembered that each year the tenant would be redeeming his holding, and be nearer the acquisition of the fee-simple; whereas, after he had paid rent for any number of years to his landlord, he was no nearer ownership than he was at the beginning. He did not deny, however, that there was some force in that objection. But it was far less than was

small owners, who might have conferred | had never yet been tried by this counupon it other, but not less, important try. It had been tried in Prussia, and, benefits. It was said, however, that he believed, in Hesse-Darmstadt, with small owners were apt to run hopelessly into debt. That was the case in France, and still more so in Russia; most of all it was the case in India. It seemed to be the natural tendency of small ownership for the owners to get gradually under the dominion of the usurer. But that danger had not been avoided by the legislation of 1881. The small tenant would still be driven to have recourse to the gombeen man. Thus, while he was alive to the objections to a peasant proprietary, he would urge that those objections equally applied to the system now established, which yet conferred upon the country none of the political advantage to be gained by the adoption of the proposal of his noble Friend. The danger from which Ireland suffered was that the political discontent which-in consequence, he was free to admit, of long periods the danger under the existing state of misgovernment-the Irishman felt, were always found in harmony with the social discontent born of poverty and of an hereditary land-hunger. Thus was generated a semi-socialistic agitation, which involved the gravest dangers to the Empire. The warmest admirers of the Land Act of 1881 would admit that, however necessary it might have been, it was, notwithstanding, looked upon by the people of Ireland as being the fruit of political agitation. Nor could anyone deny that the people of Ireland entertained the idea that by similar agitations in the future they would be able to get handed over to them a further slice of property which the landowners still looked upon as belonging to themselves. Could any one contemplate such a possibility he would rather say such a certainty -with equanimity? The proposals of his noble Friend, if they could be carried into practical effect, would have the conspicuous merit of averting that danger. If they were carried the whole property of the landlords would be transferred to the tenants, and the very class which would otherwise be ranged against law and order in Ireland would be amongst its firmest upholders. The plan of his noble Friend involved lending not the money, but the credit of the State-a plan which

of things. The annual instalments of purchase money would be paid to the local authorities with the taxes; and with each payment the imagination would be stimulated at the thought that the period of full ownership was approaching. He thought that he might appeal to the supporters of the Land Act of 1880, and that he might ask them whether they thought that the passing of that Act had not, to a certain extent, shaken the basis of property both in Ireland and in England? He believed-and the opinion had not yet become paradoxical-that the safety of society in this country absolutely depended on the solidity of those sentiments about property which were the present basis of our society. We could not materially shake this basis without doing infinite harm, not only, or principally, to landlords, but also, and chiefly, to the wage-earning classes of the community. If in 10 years' time we were going to pass another measure like the Land Act, in consequence of another agitation like that of the last three years, we should give a shock to property and credit in Ireland and in this country that would most seriously affect every class of society. He would appeal to those who had watched the course of events in the last three years whether they did not see, even in this

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, in the opinion of this House, an immediate revision of the Purchase Clauses of the Irish Land Act, 1881, is necessary, in order to give effect to the intentions of Parliament contained therein."-(Lord George Hamilton.)

country, which had as yet no Land | 1869, by far the most successful of these Act, the effects which were following measures, allowed three-fourths of the the doubtless conscientious legislation purchase money to remain on mortgage of two years ago? If he was right in either a simple mortgage of no less that idea, he did entreat the Govern- than 4 per cent, or a mortgage extinment, while there was yet time, to make guishable in 32 years. The success of such provision in Ireland as should, at these clauses was very remarkable. Out all events, prevent for ever a similar of 8,380 tenancies, only 2,326 had to agitation, followed by similar conse- be bought by the public; but upwards quences. of 6,000 tenants bought their holdings. And the average rate of purchase was very satisfactory, because it was for 223 years, or not much less than that named by the noble Lord. The tenants purchased eagerly, and they paid their instalments well; and he was gratified to be able to inform the House that they continued to pay those instalments very well. Last year, out of £120,000 due to the Land Commission, only £4,000 remained unpaid. Encouraged by the success of these sales to tenants of particular estates, Parliament resolved to extend these measures to the whole of Ireland. And then came the Bright Clauses of the Land Act. In that case two-thirds of the purchase money was advanced by the Board of Works; and it was advanced in the shape of a terminable mortgage at 3 per cent, repayable in 35 years by a payment of £5 on every £100. The success of the Bright Clauses, as generally known, was very small. The loans in 10 or 11 years were only 871, and the amount of the purchase money was only £853,000. The cause of the failure of the Purchase Clauses of the Act of 1870, as compared with those in the Church Act, was carefully examined into; and no closely into the question than his right hon. Friend who was sitting near him. In some respects the terms offered by the Bright Clauses were less favourable than those under the Church Act; but this was not owing to the terms being less favourable. It was because, under the Church Act, certain estates were offered for sale as a whole; while in the case of the Bright Clauses the individual tenant was left to make his bargain with the individual landlord. In 1881 it was considered that more equitable terms ought to be given; and, consequently, terms as good as those of the Church Act were given with regard to interest and the time of repayment of instalments; but the success did not follow which was expected. At this moment

MR. TREVELYAN said, he must congratulate the noble Lord opposite the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) on having obtained such a full House for the discussion of his Motion. The subject was one of great and, under certain circumstances, of immense importance, as they were all agreed that a considerable and a larger infusion of occupying proprietors among the landlords of Ireland would be of great advantage to the State. Hitherto they had attempted to arrive at this advantage by methods well tried by experience; but he was willing to confess that those methods had only had a limited success. Still, those methods contained the germs of great future success, if certain changes to which the noble Lord had referred were made. The Government certainly did not view the noble Lord's Resolution, as it stood on the Paper, with anything but very considerable favour, if one alteration of words, which he would describe very soon, were made. Those methods, he thought, might lead to a very considerable development of the purchase of estates by the Irish farmers if the changes to which he had alluded were made; but if we were to leave those methods altogether, we should pass from what we knew very well to what we did not know anything at all about yet. But before we took that step there must be full discussion, which might be said to have begun to-night, and the country must know thoroughly what it was about to do. The measures hitherto taken had all contained certain principles in common, and to these he invited attention. The Church Act of

Mr. A. J. Balfour

1

one went more

only 330 loans had been sanctioned, re- down better and better terms, which presenting holdings to the price of would bring landlord and tenant to£213,000. The result of all this legis- gether. This was a very real and lation was that out of the 500,000 serious reason indeed, and it ought to tenants in Ireland 7,250 had bought their holdings, or less than a hundredth, and probably considerably less, of the value of the lands of Ireland.

COLONEL KING - HARMAN asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could state the rate of purchase?

make them think very seriously what they were about, and not hold out any hopes which could not be fulfilled without danger to the State, and without more danger to the Exchequer. Some of the causes which told against the Purchase Clauses were causes which the GovernMR. TREVELYAN said, the rate of ment were very willing to remedy; and purchase under the Church Act Clauses they were set forth with very great was 223 years. The rate of purchase ability in the Report of the Lords' Comunder the Bright Clauses was 19.8, or a mittee of last year. The Report menlittle under 20 years. The causes of the tioned that in the case of land under want of success of these various Purchase settlement-and very much land was Clauses had been examined into. He under settlement in Ireland-the purwished hon. Members to bear in mind, chase money must be invested under the in discussing this Resolution, that it was Court of Chancery in some Government possible one hon. Member, in referring stock, so that an income of £1,000, reto a particular feature of the case, might duced by the expenses of collection to mean one thing, while another hon. Mem- £800 a-year, would only realize upon ber might mean another. He had no sale or investment an income of £600 doubt that the causes which he was a-year. The Committee recommended about to mention would be agreed to that the trustees should have the ordiby all. The first reason was that, in nary powers of investment in guaranteed many cases, the tenant was perfectly and preference stock, and then very little satisfied, as a tenant under a judicial loss of income would accrue. Another rent, with practical security of tenure, difficulty, which he was informed priand did not care to become an owner, vately was a very serious one, was the when he would have to pay an increased technical difficulty of head rents and rent during the whole of his life, and quit rents issuing as they did, in many pay that share of the poor rate which cases, out of the whole property, and would fall on the owner. Indeed, that the Committee had recommended that held good not only in Ireland, but in they should be apportioned. Then there England also. He had heard of a very were all the difficulties, which land regood English landowner who offered formers knew so well, relating to the each of his tenants the liberty of pur- examination of title and the transfer and chasing their farms at a moderate price; conveyance of estates; and if they underbut not one of them would do so. A took to remedy them in Ireland there few, however, thinking the estate was was no reason why they should not atabout to pass into other hands, wished tempt the same in England also. If the to bespeak certain other of the farms. Government attempted this legislation, Another cause of the failure of these they should be prepared to do it boldly; clauses was the bad seasons, which had and if the noble Lord was willing to taken the heart out of the farmers of purchase the favourable consideration of Ireland as well as of England. The the Government by striking out the Land Commissioners informed him, how-word "immediate "-[“No, no!"]— ever, that there was a small but perceptible increase in the number of farmers now proposing to purchase their farms. But, undoubtedly, the third and most important reason why the tenants would not purchase on the present terms was because they expected better terms. The tenants fully expected that both Parties in both Houses of Parliament would, as it were, compete with each other to lay

because the noble Lord knew it was perfectly impossible for the Government to think of bringing in a Bill that yearthe Government would be perfectly ready to accept so much of his Resolution in the sense which he had explained it. The noble Lord said he felt very much that one of the principal of the failures of the Purchase Clauses was that there was no intermediate body between the

COLONEL KING-HARMAN: If you fix rents under the Land Act, why should you not fix the price of estates?

landlord and the tenant to buy the conditions were fulfilled, they had no estates and retail them, as it were, to assurance that the estate would not the tenants; and he did not regard the be sold for a great deal more than Land Commission in a favourable light its value. If the buyer found part for that purpose. He thought the noble of the price, and had to pay the rest Lord underrated the importance of es- steadily and promptly, he would take tates being taken over bodily, and of care not to buy the property for more being sold piecemeal to the tenants. He than it was worth. But if all the money (Mr. Trevelyan) now came to the most was to be provided by the State, you serious features of the noble Lord's Re- would have no individual self-interest solution. They were two, and they ap- called forth in fixing the price of the peared to be, first, that he wished to estate; you would have to fix it by a raise local debenture stock, to which Government Department; and no Gofarmers and traders in the neighbour-vernment Department in the world was hood might subscribe, and the interest ever to be trusted to fix the price of of which should be payable, first, out of estates. the rates, and be guaranteed by the Imperial Exchequer. The second feature of the noble Lord's scheme, as far as he could gather, was that the tenant should practically have the purchase money lent him at the rate of 3 per cent, and that, having the money so lent him, he would be able to buy property from the landlord, the noble Lord thought, at 22 years' purchase. He (Mr. Trevelyan) had already described to the House the methods by which Parliament had tried to secure the purchase of those farms by the tenants. The House must observe that those methods contained two important propositions, and they must act very cautiously before they abandoned them. Those propositions were-first, that the purchasing tenant should lay down a substantial part of the purchase money; and, secondly, that the time in which he engaged to repay the same should not be an unlimited one. Unless these conditions were observed the Government had no assurance that he was a bond fide purchaser, and that he valued the sense of proprietorship. They had no assurance that he was the sort of man that the State could accept, or that the noble Lord could accept, as a tenant. They had no assurance that the purchaser really wanted to buy his holding, but only that the owner wanted to sell it. The second condition, relating to the term over which the repayment extended, was also vital. If the payment was a very small one the purchaser came to regard himself merely as a rentpaying tenant; whereas, if he saw a substantial part of the purchase money discharged year by year, if he found himself gradually becoming very near being a landed proprietor, the case was entirely different. Unless these two

Mr. Trevelyan

MR. TREVELYAN said, he was arguing that if you removed individual interest from the purchase of estates you could not arrive at a proper price. They had the fact that whereas, in 1880, the Church lands sold for 22 2-3rd years' purchase, in 1883 the price of land was about 19 2-3rd years' purchase. He would not enter into the cause of that. It was not his business; but it showed that there was a very great variation in the price of land from the 22 or 23 years mentioned by the Lords' Committee and adopted by the noble Lord. Neither of the two important considerations he had mentioned were fulfilled by the scheme of the noble Lord. Under his scheme the whole of the purchase money was advanced by the State, and the number of years allowed for repayment was so increased that the tenant was to sit at no higher rent than at present. It was, of course, a very attractive scheme-so attractive that it was necessary to look closely into it to see what made it possible for it to produce such a magical result-that the tenant should become owner at the same rent as before, and the purchaser should obtain full value for his land. He would just ask the House to consider whether there must not be some latent danger in a scheme so remarkably attractive. real disadvantage that underlay it was in his opinion this-that the scheme looked very well on paper. There was no doubt the State could borrow at 3 per cent; but the whole question of success and failure lay in whether it could lend safely at 3 per cent on the terms and conditions laid down in the scheme,

The

MR. O'CONNOR POWER: That was a case of famine and distress.

"se

Now, if they allowed a scheme of this | remission of Crown rent. He did not sort to hold, it was equivalent to transfer- want to say anything to which hon. Genring the land of Ireland from the land- tlemen could take exception; but they lord to the State. The tenant would could not forget that two years ago, naturally prefer to pay a lower rent, and after the tenants had got a certain meahave his estate as well, rather than to sure for fixity of tenure and fair rent pay rent for it in perpetuity. What promised them, it was thought by a good would be the consequence of this many of them reasonable not to pay rent change? The noble Lord thought the to the private landlords, because a cerlocal bodies, so to speak, would act as a tain political measure had been taken sort of buffer between the Exchequer by the Government. What would have and the tenant. He had himself great been the case if the Government itself doubts as to that. They had not many had been landlord during that agitaopportunities of judging; but they had tion? The difficulty of enforcing payone opportunity, and that was the case ment of rent in such a general disinof the seed loans. clination to pay on account of political causes was almost insuperable. It was said that the State would have the power to deal severely and strictly with whole districts at a time. When, however, they considered what dealing verely and strictly" with a whole district meant, it would probably be conceded that such very unpleasant discipline would be likely to do a great deal more radical harm than peasant proprietorship could do good. The tithe agitation seemed a good case in point. The Government granted to the Irish clergy compensation for the loss by the non-payment of tithes, and the Government became by statute entitled to enforce the payment of arrears due by the occupiers. The Attorney General instituted proceedings to recover £104,000; he recovered £12,000, at a cost in law expenses of £23,000. But it would be said there were the Protestant Church tenants. He allowed that the Church tenants had paid very well; but it had to be remembered, in the first place, that the property lay, to a very great extent, in districts where all rents were better paid than in other parts of the country; and, in the next place, that the Church tenants had already been paying their instalments for 10 years before there was any agitation against paying rent on political grounds; and, therefore, they had much at stake which they could not afford, even if they had wished, to lose. Over and above all, there was the process of weeding out the less solvent, industrious, and enterprizing Church tenants by the demand of a considerable part of the money in hand-a demand which was not made by the noble Lord. Therefore, to conclude, any scheme which involved the essential principles of the dealings which

MR. TREVELYAN said, that in the case of the seed loans money was lent to individual tenants with the Boards of Guardians behind them. The money was lent; and, in spite of the fact that the Boards of Guardians being there to act as a buffer between the Exchequer and the tenants, the result had been that representatives from most of the Boards of Guardians concerned attended on the Lord Lieutenant, and asked him to remit the moiety of the loan which still remained unpaid. One thing they must expect, that whoever was the landlord-whether the State or the private individual-there would be applications for partial remissions of rent through the whole country in bad seasons; and in the case of people who had had individual bad times there would be individual applications. The landlords had to entertain these applications now, and the State would have to entertain them, and it would be in a bad position to do so, because the State could not make the exceptions between individual tenants which a good landlord was always ready to make in case of need. It would either have to insist wholesale, or to remit wholesale. And thus they would be brought back to this-that the State would be obliged to employ probably the very same gentlemen who were now employed as land agents by individual landlords. If they advanced the whole of the purchase money they would put solvent and insolvent tenants on the same basis, and do away with the distinction between men who were fit for peasant proprietorship, and men who were unfit. Then there was the chance of political agitation in favour of the