327 Local Government (Ireland) {COMMONS} Provisional Orders, &c. Bill. 328 SUPPLY-REPORT. Resolutions [12th May] reported. MAJOR NOLAN, before the Resolutions in Committee of Supply were reported, wished to draw the attention of the House to a matter connected with the Patent Office. A large sum of money was derived from the Patent Office; about five-sixths of the sums paid by the patentees went into the Imperial Exchequer, and about onesixth was spent on the Patent Office itself. The books in that Office were kept in the most disgraceful state, whereas in America various abridgements of the patents were furnished. There were also good plans and printed books in America by which anyone could see what a patent was about by simply looking through the description and plan. About three years ago, abridgements were started in the Patent Office; but they had now been discontinued, as the form in which they were made rendered them of no use. These were never proper abridgements, and now they were abolished altogether; and if a man went into the Patent Office, he had to wade through a long patent of four or five pages to find out what it was about. That was a most discreditable thing, although it was very true that the Library was good in other respects, excepting that it was too small. There was hardly room in it for the present books and documents, and the whole thing was in a very bad state. He thought the Government ought to take care that proper abridgements were made; he did not insist upon plans as in America, but abridgements were absolutely necessary. The law in this country was somewhat different to that of America; for here a man claimed as being the true and original inventor, which was not the case in America. If proper abridgements and plans were furnished, every person of common sense could find out at once what a patent was about; but, at the present moment, no one could make any investigations without the greatest difficulty. He was constantly told that American machinery and tools were better than those of this country; and, in his opinion, that was owing to the fact that it was so difficult to find out anything with regard to patents. He thought that better machinery and a better Patent Law went together. Of course, some people might be of opinion that it would be best if the Patent Law were altogether abolished; he did not intend to argue that question; but all that was necessary, in his opinion, was that the Patent Law should be improved. He thought the Government should give some assurance that these matters should be looked into, and that the arrangements of the Patent Office should be put into a more scientific form, so that anyone could make investigations without being put to the great labour which was now entailed. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, than whom there was no one better acquainted with patent matters, brought this matter before the Government last year, and he had then promised to endeavour to make some improvement, and to place the Patent Office upon a better footing than existed at that time. Since that period he had sanctioned the appointment of a certain number of clerks in the Patent Office for the purpose of preparing proper indices. From that fact, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would perceive that the Government had every desire to effect an improvement. But he would remind him that everything could not be done at once. He could, however, assure him that the subject was not lost sight of, and that he would himself make inquiries into the question of abridgements and plans, and endeavour to see whether his views could be met. He fully agreed with him that it was of great importance to give every facility for readily ascertaining the existence of a patent, and that a great improvement might be made upon the means for so doing which at present existed. Resolutions agreed to. EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS. Ordered, That the several Accounts and Papers which have been presented to this House in this Session of Parliament. relating to the Revenues of India, be referred to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House.-(M. Edward Stanhope.) Committee thereupon upon Thursday 22nd May. House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, 14th May, 1879. MINUTES.]-SELECT COMMITTEE-Second Re- Ordered-First Reading-Indian Marine [182]; First Reading-Great Seal* [180]. Seemd Reading-Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) (No. 2) [51], put off; Local Government Provisional Orders (Axminster Union, &c.) [154; Local Government (Highways) Provisional Orders (Buckingham, &c.) * [161]. Third Reading -West India Loans * [167], and passed. ORDER OF THE DAY. LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.-[BILL 51.] (Mr. Downing, Mr. Butt, Mr. Shaw.) Order for Second Reading read. MR. SHAW, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he was sure the House would excuse him if he expressed his deep regret that this duty should have now fallen upon him. The death of his esteemed Colleague, Mr. M'Carthy Downing, and, more recently, of his much-respected Friend and political associate for many years, Mr. Butt, had thrown this very onerous duty upon him. He need hardly say that the death of those Gentlemen had been a great loss to the House; but it had been a much greater loss to the cause of reform and progress in Ireland. They were both men of great experience. No man was better acquainted with the various questions connected with Land Reform than Mr. Downing; and the practical experience of Mr. Butt, combined with all the higher qualities of statesmanship, enabled him to deal successfully with subjects involving the nice and delicate points connected with property. He felt that, having accepted the duty of introducing this Bill, he should look over the debates that had arisen in recent years upon the subject. Although he had enjoyed a seat in that House for 10 years, and had aided in passing the Land Bill, he had never taken part in any of the great debates upon the question. He had heard every speech that was delivered upon it in the House for some years past; but, still, he considered it his duty to go over all those speeches again, especially those in opposition to the measure, to see what really were the objections to the Bill. The perusal considerably staggered him, for it seemed the English language hardly contained words strong enough to denote the opinions held by Gentlemen opposite. The Bill was, in their opinion, "confiscation"-it was the "destruction of the rights of property," and so on. It was, therefore, not without some trepidation that he re-examined his Bill, bringing to the study a deep sense of duty; and he said, without hesitation, that if it contained any such principles it would not have his name upon it. The Bill was a moderate one, and would tend to strengthen and confirm the stability of the institution of property in Ireland. Those who supported it were taunted with bringing forward a confiscatory Bill - and he thought he remembered hearing from the opposite side the suggestion that they advocated, but did not practise, these principles in favour of the tenants in dealing with their own property in Ireland. That was hardly a fair line of argument; because there might be personal matters, such, for instance, as family settlements -- which prevented Gentlemen dealing individually as they might desire, and who, if they were authorized by law, might act in a different manner. But was it a fact that those who advocated the measure disregarded its principles? Mr. Downing offered to his tenants a tenure exactly upon the lines of the Bill. Mr. D'Arcy, I lived by the land-their exclusive busiwho occupied a seat in the House in the ness, he might fairly say, being to till last Parliament, gave to his tenants a the land-and yet their tenure was so tenure upon the same lines. He did not uncertain and precarious that they held like to speak of himself; but he had their means of subsistence absolutely at held land by purchase in Ireland for the will of their landlord. That was a the last 25 years, and, he supposed, condition of the law which must be when he got the ownership he was inimical to the welfare of the country. wanting in some of the grand instincts It had a most injurious effect alike upon of landlordism; but one of the first individuals and upon the nation. It things he did was to tell his tenants accounted, in a great measure, for the that as long as he was their landlord people being called unstable and unthey might hold the land on the same thrifty. In fact, it was impossible for lines as those of the Bill-that was, any individual or any nation to be thrifty that they should not be disturbed as when their entire means of living were long as they paid their rents; that their uncertain and precarious. To be stable rents should be fair; and that if they a people must have something stable in wished to sell they could do so without their surrounding institutions. The undue interference on his part. Within contrary was the case, and the unstable six months two parties sold out, one of character of the holding of land had inwhom got more than the fee-simple for sinuated itself into the very character of an expiring lease; and by reason of his the people. Much of the want of steadiadopting the lines of the Bill there was ness in high aims and great plans no property in Ireland upon which more and purposes which had been ascribed money was laid out by the tenants. One to the people of Ireland was due to this of the great problems they had to solve cause, and could not be traced to race, in Ireland was that of improving the religion, climate, or any of those influtenure of land. There had not been for ences to whose account it was sometimes centuries any man of capacity who credited. What had been done to relooked at this subject, or at the social medy this condition of things? A Land condition of Ireland generally, who had Act was passed in 1870-and he, for hesitated for a moment to pronounce the one, agreed with the right hon. Meminsecurity of the tenure of the land to ber for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) be at the bottom of all the evils that that it was a great and honest measure; afflicted that country. This was a ques- but that right hon. Gentleman also said tion not merely of politics, but one it was imperfect and incomplete. affecting the life and prosperity of the doubt, it was. It introduced great and country, and its prompt settlement was important principles; but it did not worthy of the highest statesmanship. carry them out to their legitimate end. From the time of James I., when the It partook of the character of all our law of tanistry was abolished, from the social legislation in this respect-that a time in which Sir John Davies had pre- long time was required to mature and sented his Report, in which he declared carry out any change. When the Bill that insecurity of tenure was at the root of 1870 was laid before the country, the of the Irish difficulty, to that of Sir effort of the landlords was directed to Robert Peel, who said a short time narrow and confuse its operation; and before his death that if the tenure of the consequence was that many of its land in Ireland were improved, he did most beneficent provisions had become not see why it should not become very inoperative. One very important part prosperous, and thence to the more re- of the measure related to the purchase cent utterances of the right hon. Mem- by tenants of their own holdings; but bers for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) and what had come of that? What came of Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), every another part applying most vitally to man of political capacity who had looked three-fourths of the country? Why, at the subject came to the same conclu- the very moment the clause was adopted, sion. There was no other country in declaring that the tenants had a right to Europe in which such a system of land compensation for disturbance, a sliding tenure existed as prevailed in Ireland. scale of compensation was adopted that What was really the state of the case? made the clause almost perfectly useless. Three-fourths of the people of Ireland There was hardly a landlord in Ireland Mr. Shaw No whom it would not pay to dispossess his | give them the power, in case of good tenants upon that scale; and, for him- fortune, of raising them above their self, he was bound to say that if he took position, or, in case of evil fortune, advantage of it he would make a large casting them beneath it, to get the full amount of money. Now, he desired, by value of their holdings from an inmeans of his Bill, to meet these draw- coming tenant. It struck him that no backs. He was in hopes up till then more reasonable principles than these that it would obtain a second reading, could be placed before reasonable men. because no one had put down a Notice There was nothing in them unjust, unof opposition to it till then. He was sur- fair, or against the rights of property. prised to find that the opposition came In fact, it would be in favour of the from a Gentleman sitting on the Liberal rights of property, if these principles side of the House; and he could not ima- were carried out. What the Bill progine why he should come forward as the posed was the adoption, as far as posadvocate of extreme landlordism in Ire- sible, of the original tenant right of land; because, if the Opposition came into Ulster, and its application to the whole power, they would be bound to deal with of Ireland. He was quite aware that the question substantially on the lines the tenant right of Ulster had been of the Bill now before the House. The modified, and that in some cases efforts object of the promoters of the Bill was had been made to efface it; but histo do justice to the tenants and land- tory and their own experience left no lords; and if there was any appearance doubt as to what that principle and rule of injustice, there was no reason why it really were. The Ulster custom was could not be removed in Committee. really the key by which the problem of But the principle, he urged, ought to the land in Ireland could be solved; and be affirmed. He would not trouble the they had this advantage--that in using House by dwelling upon the first two it they were not disturbing the feelings parts of the Bill, because, last year, very and habits of the people, because-he little was said against them. In fact, said it without doubt or hesitation, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman he had a knowledge of the South and the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Law), West of Ireland-he found throughout who made an exhaustive speech on the the country the feeling on the part of subject, expressing what might be taken the tenant that he had a right to the as the view of official Liberalism, stated value of his holdings. What was more that the first two parts contained little natural ? The practice was not underthat was objectionable, and it was stood in England, though the hisagainst the third part that he directed tory of the English laws disclosed it, his heavy artillery. To the third part showing that in England the same prache should, therefore, now briefly direct tice existed as in the North of Ireland. attention. This part gave the tenants When the Romans left England, they of Ireland the power of getting security did not efface from the customs of the of tenure. He did not use the word people the influence of Roman law, and "fixity," because it might give rise to the Roman law gave the right of inheritmisunderstanding; and, in fact, they able tenancy. Continuous tenancy, and could not fix the tenantry of a particular copyhold, and other forms of tenancy district therein and secure that they throughout England, were the remains should remain there permanently. The of this law. No doubt, an immense only thing that could be done was to effort was made to get rid of this in times secure to them a reasonable amount of of high prices, and land in England was security, as far as that could be done let just as a house would be furnished consistently with natural laws that must and let, or a ship equipped and sent out work in the case of the Irish tenant as to sea. But in Ireland the people did well as with regard to every other class not get their fences and drains provided. of the community. He proposed to give In the times of James I. the people got to the tenantry of Ireland, without ex- their land on the condition that they cluding any class, the power of se- would reclaim it, and continuous tenancy curing themselves in the occupation of was one of the fundamental conditions of their holdings without being subject their holding. Insensibly, and as a to having their property confiscated by matter of course, the same principle an unreasonable advance of rent, and to spread through the whole of Ireland. Upon two large estates bounding his own he found this principle in force, and the tenants were hardly ever evicted except for some gross non-payment of rent; while they either received compensation, or were allowed to sell their holdings. A man in Ireland had no real and substantial interest for improving the soil. The terror was kept over him that some day or other, by a change in the law or in the family of the owners of the land, or from some other circumstances, the land on which he and his fathers had lived, and around which every feeling of home centred, might be rendered so uncomfortable to him as to compel him to seek a home elsewhere. Was that a sound principle on which to found the prosperity of a country? It was, in fact, treating the country unjustly and landlordism unjustly. Landlordism ought to be above the littleness of dreading every movement in legislation as something which might swallow up and destroy it. Was the position of the owners of the land so weak that they dreaded to give a man a real hold upon his own property, lest the property of the landlord in the soil should be destroyed? He believed that if the prayer of this Bill were granted, it would do more to strengthen the hold of property and increase the feeling of respect and goodwill between landlords and tenants than any other measure that could possibly be devised. In the discussion the other night about the Law of Distress, the Attorney General for Ireland pointed out that there was no such clause in this Bill; and the reason that much stress was not laid in Ireland upon the Law of Distress was, that there was no landlord who did not feel that there was between himself and the loss of his rent a great deal of property to fall back upon. He knew a case where four years' rent was due, and the landlord, instead of distraining, referred the question of the right of parties to two persons, who decided that he ought to give the family of the tenant as much as would take them to America. That was done, and the landlord had not had possession of the land for a week before he was offered for it a sum equal to 5 per cent advance on the rent and outlay. The principles of this Bill were such that no man of common sense, dealing with his own tenants, would ever question their justice, and no Legislature could do more Mr. Shaw for the pacification of Ireland than by passing this Bill. If something was not done, the difficulty would arise of getting tenants to take the land. Why should people, when rich land was waiting for them in other parts of the world, remain in Ireland in a state of serfdom? If hon. Members valued the stability and prosperity of the country, and wished to settle a great question which was ripe for settlement, and which could now be settled rationally and effectively, let them pass the second reading of this Bill, and make in Committee such Amendments as were considered necessary. MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY seconded the Motion. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Shaw.) SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW, in rising to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, the hon. Member for the County of Cork had expressed his surprise at opposition to the Bill coming from that (the Liberal) side of the House. He wished to explain that he had put his Motion for its rejection upon the Paper as the representative of the Irish Society and speaking for a large number of the Companies of the City of London interested in land in Ulster, who considered that the Bill materially interfered with their rights. The hon. Member had treated the question as if the provisions of the Land Bill had not passed, and were not in operation; as if the tenants of Ireland had not now the right to obtain compensation for their improvements and for disturbance in their holdings. He (Sir Sydney Waterlow) was not there to object to these provisions. The Land Bill had been of the greatest advantage, not only to the Province of Ulster, but to the whole of Ireland; and what he said was that they should not make any further change in the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland till they had further experience of the working of the Irish Land Act. No one could say that the Land Courts of Ireland had not fairly and fully considered the claims that had come before them for improvements to the land in the shape of buildings, drainage, &c. He should be glad to see the Ulster custom extended to the South and West |