ships to recollect that this was not a new principle he did not mean to say, that the case of an occupying tenant, and that of a tenant for life, or a tenant under settlement, were exactly analogous - but he entreated their Lordships not to consider that the supposition of such an analogy was altogether fanciful, and that there was not room for the occupying tenant to say that while the House of Lords were studious to devise measures for the advantage of that class to which they themselves belonged, they did not put in the same position the occupying tenants. The tenant for life had, by numerous Acts of Parliament, been empowered without the consent of his successor to lay out any portion of money for the permanent improvement of his estate, and then to charge the expense upon his successor. He might be far advanced in years-his tenure might be only three or four years' duration-and yet their Lordships had not hesitated to say that such tenant might have those powers which he had just mentioned. Comparing this with the case of the occupying tenant in Ireland, he might be told there was a difference in principle as to the tenure; still would they say there was not such an analogy between the two cases as to lead the occupying tenant to look with suspicion upon such legal provisions when he was himself deprived of any such analogous protection? Let the landlords of Ireland take what security they pleased that the improvements should be real, valid bond fide substantial improvements; but he did trust that when they had taken that precaution, they would not, after they had encouraged the tenant to lay out his capital, and had held out to him the prospect of his having a just compensation awarded to him, reject a Bill which was intended to give him that compensation, and which would only operate to give him that compensation in the event of his being evicted by his landlord. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had stated that Her Majesty's Government should take upon themselves the responsibility of disappointing the hopes entertained in Ireland, which would be the result of rejecting this Bill. On the part of Her Majesty's Government he (Lord Stanley) must, in the exercise of his best judgment, refuse to take upon himself that responsibility. The Government had acted upon the judgment, not of enthusiasts, not of men dependent upon party ties, but upon men acting upon a full knowledge of the real state of Ire land. It was upon the recommendation of such men that the Government had introduced a measure falling far short of what was desired by many, for they had encountered the danger of creating disappointment by not going beyond the recommendations of those to whom they had entrusted the task of inquiring into this matter. But, on the other hand, they would now be most justly open to the charge of creating disappointment, and of incurring the highest responsibility, if, after having founded a measure upon the recommendation of men of the highest character and of the greatest experiencemen taken from all parties in Irelandand whose recommendation was sustained by witnesses from every quarter-men separated from each other by politics and by religious opinion, but who in common were all connected with the landed interest of Ireland, Her Majesty's Government would have incurred a serious responsibility if, after all this, they were to consent to abandon a Bill introduced under such circumstances. They would then be justly open to the charge of creating a feeling of well-founded disappointment and dissatisfaction among the people of Ireland, and of shaking that confidence which he trusted the people of Ireland reposed in the liberality and justice of the British Parliament. That was not a responsibility which he, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, was prepared to undertake. He was certainly prepared calmly and deliberately to consider in Committee all the details of the measure; but if, without going into Committee, their Lordships should think fit to reject the Bill, the responsibility must rest, not upon Her Majesty's Government, but upon their Lordships. The Earl of Essex asked a question respecting the compulsory clause. Lord Stanley said, that the 10th Clause of the Bill, to which the noble Earl had referred, was what in the course of the discussion had frequently been termed the compulsory clause; and he considered it most important for the efficiency of the measure that that clause should be retained. He did not, however, go so far as some noble Lords, who had expressed their conviction that if this clause were withdrawn the Bill would be entirely ineffectual: but he was ready to go into Committee, leaving that clause entirely an open question. The Earl of Essex: You do not withdraw it? Lord Stanley: No. The Earl of Roden wished to ask the noble Lord if it was to be understood that this Bill had received the unanimous approbation of the Commissioners? Lord Stanley said, he was quite willing to state that this Bill had not received, in regard to its machinery, the unanimous assent of the Commissioners. He believed some of the Commissioners were of opinion that an appeal to the Assistant Barrister, for the purpose of deciding the points at issue, would be more advantageous than an appeal to the Government Commissioner. But the Commissioners were unanimous in their recommendation, first, that means should be provided for registering voluntary agreements between landlords and tenants as to improvements; next, that when the landlord and tenant could not agree with reference to such improvements, the tenant should be empowered to serve notice upon his landlord of any proposed improvements; and that the desirableness of such improvements should be determined upon by two mutually chosen arbitrators, with power of appeal to the Assistant Barrister; and also, that if a tenant should be ejected within a fixed period-thirty years having been mentioned he should be entitled to an amount of compensation proportionate to the improvements he had effected. The Marquess of Lansdowne said, he could not but feel that the practical effect of this measure would be to introduce a new principle-namely, the intervention of an authority at Dublin for the purpose of compelling landlords to defray an expenditure which, in their judgment, might be improper and unnecessary, and which they might not think conducive to their interests. He entertained very strong objections to this Bill; but, at the same time, he felt for the position of Her Majesty's Government. The Government had given their assent to a Commission of Inquiry, attended with circumstances of publicity, of notoriety — he was almost going to say of ostentation, but that such a term might seem offensive to his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Devon), who had so industriously, so ably, and so assiduously conducted that inquiry-and they had excited among the Irish people, whose hopes and expectations were very easily raised, the most extravagant and undue expectations, which, whatever measures might be adopted, would still be disappointed. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) had stated that he was prepared to abandon the compulsory clause of this Bill. [Lord Stanley: No, no.] The noble Lord had, at least, said, that he considered it would be advisable to adopt this Bill, even if their Lordships should think fit, in Committee, to omit the compulsory clause, That statement had been made by the noble Lord, not only once, but twice or thrice, in the course of this debate. The noble Lord had also assured them, that though he was desirous of retaining the Commissioner at Dublin to judge for the landlords of Ireland how they ought to improve their estates; yet that if the landlords of Ireland should be so obstinate and conceited as to think they knew better than that Commissioner could do how to improve their own paoperty, he (Lord Stanley) was, with the same candour, ready to give up the Commissioner with the compulsory clause, and cling to what would then remain of the Bill. Lord Stanley: The noble Marquess is entirely wrong on both points. What I said was, that I did not go so far as some of my noble Friends, in thinking that this Bill would have no beneficial tendency, even if the compulsory clause was withdrawn, though I thought that clause a great additional advantage to the Bill. I also stated that I did not think, as has been said by a noble Lord opposite, that the Government officer is the principle of the Bill, because I was ready to admit any other mode of arbitration which would secure to the occupying tenant the same advantage and security for his compensation. I said also, with regard both to the Commissioner and the compulsory clause, that while I adhered to my belief that both were most advantageous, and while I was prepared to defend them, I did not intend to pledge any noble Lord who might vote for the second reading to the adoption of either of those principles, and that I was ready to discuss them in Committee. I certainly did not consider that discussion and abandonment have the same signification; I think the meaning of those terms is widely different. As I leave to noble Lords, after the second reading of the Bill, the discretion and the right of dealing with the principles I have mentioned in Committee, so must I reserve to the Government the right of considering the Amendments, whatever they may be, that may be made in the Bill in Committee, and of determining what course they will adopt. The Marquess of Lansdowne said, the statement contained in the last part of the noble Lord's explanation, their Lordships had heard for the first time; all the rest the noble Lord had stated for the second or third time; but the reservation on the part of the Government, whether it would proceed with the Bill at all if these alterations should be made, was only now mentioned. He had never meant to imply that the noble Lord was willing to abandon the Bill; but that if outvoted in the Committee, he would be willing to give up the compulsory clause, still thinking it worth while to preserve the rest of the measure, as likely to be useful to Ireland. He was not prepared to say the Bill would be of no benefit after these alterations were made, but he thought no very essential feature of the measure would remain afterwards. The compulsory principle was a new one, to which their Lordships ought not to consent without grave deliberation; the appointment of a Commissioner in Dublin was also a most questionable provision, tending to be cumbersome and inconvenient in operation. It would lead to perpetual disputes; it would be of no advantage to a respectable tenant and a good landlord, while it would put a weapon into the hands of a litigious person, to be used in order to obtain revenge upon his landlord. The noble Lord had stated that the Bill referred to building, fencing, draining things that were clear and simple enough; but there remained behind the question of what kind of building, and what sort of draining and fencing, would be best calculated to make an improvement: on these points it would be difficult for the Commissioner to arrive at a right judgment. Voluntary agree be removed, and what could be the efficacy of what remained in reference to the present state of Ireland. The Bill was important to England and Scotland as well as to Ireland; though the circumstances of the countries were different, yet the principle of the right of property was the same in all three, and they could not long introduce a new principle in one for many years, without being compelled to apply its operation to the others. If the Bill proceeded, it ought to be referred to a Select Committee; and he should vote that it be so referred, reserving to himself the right of afterwards reconsidering the whole measure, being as anxious as the noble Lord to promote the prosperity and encourage the improvement of Ireland. The Earl of Devon, in reference to the question of the unanimity of the Commissioners on the present Bill, read some passages from their Report. The Marquess of Londonderry said, the noble Earl had given them no information whatever; what they stated in the Report was known before; the question was, had all the Commissioners agreed as to the provisions of the present Bill? The Earl of Devon was undertood to say that they had not all agreed with respect to them. On Question that "now" stand part of the Motion? House divided:-Contents 48; Not Contents 34:-Majority 14. Bill read 2a. House adjourned. The following Protest against the Tenants Compensation (Ireland) Bill was entered on the Journals. DISSENTIENT— 1. Because whilst we are most solicitous to support any measure which produces, or which has any tendency to produce an improvement in the condition of the occupying tenantry of Ireland, we are unable to discover in the provisions of the present Bill any enactment which will have that beneficial effect. ments between landlords and tenants in Ireland had been of late years increasing, and were increasing every day; it was this wholesome spirit of improvement the Legislature ought to encourage. The noble Earl (Devon) had stated the Bill would not impede the action of the spirit of mutual agreement; but it would lead the tenant to another quarter besides his landlord; he ought to apply to his landlord in 2. Because we consider the improvement of the first instance. [Lord Stanley: It is agriculture and the extension of a demand for done in the Bill.] [A noble Lord: Through labour in Ireland, to depend very mainly upon the Commissioner.] That was what he the mutual good understanding and co-operaobjected to; the tenant ought to apply to tion between landlord and tenant, and the the landlord in the first instance. If, how- contribution of the capital of the one class in ever, the noble Lord attached import-aid of the industry of the other, which the ance to what might remain of the measure after it should be altered, he would not take on himself the responsibility of arresting its progress in the present stage; the House should have an opportunity of considering how these objectionable parts could provisions of this Bill seem calculated to check and limit, rather than to increase and to encourage. 3. Because the intervention of a Government officer, called in, not as a guide and adviser, by two parties anxious to combine in the execution of a definite system of well considered improvement, but interposing at the request of one party only, and possibly against the consent of the other, appears to us manifestly unjust in principle, and likely to lead to dissensions and jealousies, where it is most important that goodwill and cordiality should permanently exist. 4. Because we consider the compulsory introduction of new and varied obligations between parties who have already entered into contracts, and this without a saving of those existing contracts, gives to this Bill an ex post facto operation, contrary to justice and to the first principles on which sound legislation should proceed; principles which have hitherto been regarded by Parliament as sacred and inviolable. 5. Because the introduction of a measure like the present seems peculiarly rash, dangerous, and inopportune, at a time when it appears from the Report of the Commissioners that "in spite of many embarrassing and counteracting circumstances, in almost every part of Ireland, unequivocal symptoms of improvement continually present themselves to the view, and when there exists a very general and increasing spirit and desire for the prosecution of improvements from which the most beneficial results may fairly be expected." 6. Because a facility of erecting new buildings on small farms, without taking any adequate security for the future and permanent appropriation of those buildings to those uses only which may be conducive to the real interest of the tenant as well as of the landlord, and to the improvement and good cultivation of the land, can hardly fail to promote the increase of a pauper population, lowering the rate of wages, augmenting the price of food, adding ultimately to the competition for leases, and thus aggravating incalculably many of the most serious evils incident to the condition of the Irish peasantry. 7. Because a provision to encourage the levelling of existing fences is not only inapplicable to the greater part of Ireland, but, as being unaccompanied by clauses to provide for the erection of new fences of a permanent or improved character, or indeed of fences any at all, seems to us most irrational and absurd, 8. Because even if it is assumed that the principle of the Bill is as wise and just as, for the reasons stated, it appears to us indefensible and impolitic, it is manifest that the machinery provided in this Bill by the establishment of a single officer of the Government in Dublin, acting through Assistant Commissioners, nominated by himself, is wholly inadequate to the performance of duties extending over the whole surface of a great country. 9. Because the enactment of an ill-considered measure like the present, may raise serious obstacles in the way of a wiser system of legislative interference, to which we should feel disposed to give our most favourable consideration; a system which, by affording guidance and instruction, where skill and science are required; in facilitating the application of capital where capital is needed and is likely to be profitably applied; by encouraging co-operation not only between landlord and tenant, but between parties interested in adjacent estates; by securing to the tenant the strict and accurate performance of all covenants entered into with him, and a full return for all improvements which he has effected with his landlord's approval; by securing to the landlord the maintenance of all improvements to which he may be called on to contribute, shall increase the amount of agricultural produce, shall augment the national wealth, shall stimulate and render more permanent the demand for labour; and thus without the violation of any principle shall facilitate the discharge of the duties, whilst maintaining the rights, of property, and shall thus improve the condition of all classes of Her Majesty's Irish subjects. MONTEAGLE AND BRANDON, GOSFORD, BILLS. Public.-10. Deodands Abolition; Accidents Compensation. Private.-10. Lord Barrington's Estate. 2o. Lady Sandy's (Turner's) Estate. Reported.-Preston and Wyre Railway Branches (re-committed); St. Helen's Canal and Railway (re-committed). 3° and passed:-Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway; Totnes Markets and Waterworks (No. 2); Lyme Regis Improvement, Market, aud Waterworks; Oxford and Rugby Railway. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. F. Maule, from Minister, Elders, and others of Free Church, Northill, Perth, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.-By Mr. H. Baillie, from North Uist, against Universities (Scotland) BillBy Mr. Bouverie, Mr. F. Maule, and Mr. Morison, from several places, in favour of Universities (Scotland) Bill.By Mr. G. W. Hope, from the Legislative Council of Canada, for Alteration of British Possessions Abroad Act.By Mr. C. Wood, from Bankers and others of York, for enforcing Observance of the Treaty with Buenos Ayres.From C. M'Donnell and Sons, for Repeal of Duty on Paper. By Mr. Borthwick, Lord C. Fitzroy, Mr. Bro therton, and Viscount Howick, from a great number of places, in favour of the Ten Hours System in Factories. -By Mr. Craig, from Ordinary and Extraordinary Di rectors of the Association for Improving the Sanatory Condition of Edinburgh, for Sanatory Regulations (Health of Towns).-By Mr. Bouverie, from Chemists appeal, however, had been lodged in the case; and he was accordingly sentenced to find security for six months, himself in 401. and two sureties in 201. each. He and Druggists of Peterborough, for Alteration of Physic expressed himself unable to find sureties, and Surgery Bill.-By Sir T. Acland, from Master Ma- and was unwilling to enter into his own riners and Mariners or Ilfracombe, for Alteration of Mer-recognizances; and having lodged no apvost, Magistrates, and Councillors of Dumbarton, for Al- peal against the decision made in the case, teration of Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill.-By he was detained in prison. Under these Mr. Bramston, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Ord, from several circumstances it appeared that on the 16th of places, for Diminishing the Number of Public Houses.By Mr. F. Dundas, and Captain Wemyss, from Orkney, October, he being then in prison for want and Fife, for Ameliorating the Condition of Schoolmasters of entering into security to keep the peace, a (Scotland). By Viscount Howick, from Sunderland, detainer for a debt of 14/. was lodged against Timber Ships Bill. against him. Now, that fact was alto chant Seamen's Fund Act.-By Mr. Bouverie, from Pro action given by the hon. Gentleman, though from that time forward he had been confined on the debtors' side of the Laws of the Isle OF MAN.] Dr. Bow-gether omitted in the account of the transring said, he had upon the Paper three questions to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham). They referred to an illegal arrest and imprisonment which had taken place in the Isle of Man. He understood that the attention of the Lord Chancellor had been called to the matter since he had before mentioned it in the House; and he hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet was prepared to give some explanation of the Occurrence. In order that the right hon. Gentleman might be enabled to do so explicitly, he had set forward the questions which he wished to ask in detail on the Paper. They were as follows: "Whether John Walters Coldicot was committed, on or about the 9th day of September last, to Castle Rushen, in the Isle of Man, on a charge of assault, without any examination or hearing before a magistrate? Whether, on complaining of the irregularity and hardship of his commitment to the Lieutenant Governor of the island, the case was referred by the said Lieutenant Governor to the committing magistrate himself? Whether the original committal was not to compel the prisoner to keep the peace for six months, and whether, the six months being passed, he was not and is not now detained in gaol ?" prison. In the month of April, the gentleman by whom he had been originally committed for want of security to keep the peace, consented to his liberation, provided he would enter into his own recog nizances, without being under the necessity of finding sureties. The prisoner, however, refused to do so. He was bound to suppose that the hon. Gentleman who brought this case before the House was not aware of the character of the indivi dual on whose behalf he asked these questions. He (Sir James Graham) had already told the House that this person had been committed on the present occasion on account of a most violent and brutal assault on his wife; but it appeared that this was not the first time that he had been guilty of a grave crime. He had been on a former occasion actually convicted and imprisoned for two years, on account of an assault with intent to commit a rape on his own daughter. Dr. Bowring wished to ask, in addition, whether the right hon. Baronet would not consent that the state of the law, which permitted the irregularity of a person being committed to prison without inquiry, should be altered? Sir James Graham: I am not aware that any breach of the law, or any irregularity, has been committed on this occasion. Sir James Graham said, in consequence of the former statement of the hon. Member, he had communicated with the Governor of the Isle of Man on the subject. It was necessary that he should preface his answer by remarking that the law of the Isle of Man was local and peculiar, and RAILWAY LEGISLATION.] Mr. Gisborne very dissimilar from the law of this coun-wished to ask the right hon. Baronet at try. It appeared that the person alluded the head of Her Majesty's Government, to had been charged before a magistrate, whether parties applying to Parliament about the early part of September last, for Railway Bills would be still obliged to with a grievous assault on his wife. Ac-deposit plans or sections with the Railway cording to the law of the island, a warrant Department of the Board of Trade; or was issued for his apprehension, against whether any alterations in the present syswhich it was open to him to appeal. No tem were intended to be made? 2 P Third VOL. LXXXI. {Series} |