which he hoped would be followed up in | to be so committed. He was quite prethe present. pared to say, that the only extent to which The Bishop of Salisbury wished to any noble Lord was committed by agreecorrect an error into which the noble Lording to the second reading was, that it was (Lord Beaumont) had fallen. He stated expedient to secure, by legislative enactthat a feeling of irritation had been caused ment, to the tenants of Ireland compenby the Bible Society and by the Society sation for such improvements of a permafor the Propagation of the Gospel in nent character, adding to the permanent Foreign Parts. It was no part of the ma- value of the fee of the estate, as they should chinery of the latter society to send mis- effect on the land, supposing they should sionaries into foreign countries. The be ejected therefrom before they had deobject which it had in view was to send rived any return from the outlay. Whether missionaries to our Colonies and Foreign the landlords should have the power of Dependencies, and to heathen countries. interposing a veto, and of preventing such improvements, was a question entirely open to the House to consider in Committee; and no noble Lord would be pledged by agreeing to the second reading of the Bill, but was at perfect liberty to reject the measure when before their Lordships.

The Marquess of Breadalbane was satisfied the explanation of the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) would not give satisfaction to the religious public of this country. It was no answer to say, there were persecuting laws on our Statute Book. As to the Free Church of Scotland, he was satisfied the members of that Church would stand competition with those of any Established Church, both for sin- The Marquess of Londonderry: Am I cerity of faith and liberality of sentiment. to understand there is to be a legislative The case which he had brought forward interference between landlord and tenant? involved a great public question, and had The Marquess of Clanricarde: I should not been met in anything like a satisfac-like to know what are the voluntary and tory manner. what the compulsory clauses?

The Earl of Abeedeen wished to explain as to the amount of compensation alluded to by the noble and learned Lord. The proceedings in this case were something more than a mere irregularity. There was an illegal imprisonment for five months, contrary to law, treaty, and justice; and although the individual alluded to was well treated, his confinement furnished a fair case for compensation, which would have been given, but for his own wish to compromise the matter. Subject at an end.

TENANTS COMPENSATION (IRELAND) BILL QUESTION.] The Marquess of Salisbury took the liberty of asking a question of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. He had understood, that the consenting to the second reading of the Tenants' Compensation Bill would not bind any noble Lord to assent to the compulsory clauses. He wished to ask if such was a correct understanding.

Lord Stanley said, he understood the question to be, whether by consenting to the second reading of the Bill his noble Friend was committed to the compulsory clauses. He had no hesitation in saying, that he did not consider any noble Lord

The Marquess of Salisbury said, under these circumstances, he should not oppose the second reading.

Lord Stanley: It was very difficult to answer so many questions put at the same time. He had endeavoured to state distinctly that no Peer would be pledged to the compulsory clauses of this Bill by assenting to the second reading: and what he understood his noble Friend to mean by compulsory clauses were those which gave the Commissioners in Dublin the power of directing certain improvements, even though the landlord should object to them.

TENANTS COMPENSATION (IRELAND) BILL.] Lord Stanley moved that the Bill be now read 2a.

The Marquess of Londonderry: If the landlords had the same discretionary power as they enjoyed at present, he should not object to this Bill. But if a Commissioner in Dublin had the power of dictating what arrangements should take place, he should consider it a most prejudicial measure. This Bill had grown out of a Report which contained a mass of valuable information; but this Bill did not certainly confirm the principle laid down by the Commissioners, that the rights of property should be respected. He understood a measure of this description was first suggested by a

Member of the other House, a man of | pay their rents, they shall never be distalent certainly, but one whose political turbed. This produces a confidence opinions had undergone a variety of which stimulates industry, and the farm changes; for he was at first a supporter of the disturber-general of Ireland, and then a Federalist. He understood, however, that this gentleman was always a supporter of fixity of tenure; and, therefore, he concluded that he was in a great measure the author of this Bill. He much regretted the rapidity with which the Commissioners had been compelled to carry on their inquiries. He admitted that the noble Earl at the head of the Commission was a man of great talent; but when he understood that these Commissioners did not approve of the machinery of this Bill, then, as an Irishman, acquainted with the country, he claimed a right to be heard as to its provisions. It was no party question; it was a question concerning the welfare of the whole country. The Bill was introduced, he admitted, with the view of serving the agricultural interest in Ireland. But it should always be borne in mind, in legislating for Ireland, that a measure which was applicable to one part of the country was inapplicable to another. He not only opposed this Bill as not requisite in his part of the country, but he had the signatures of thirty-six Peers backing that opinion. Could he give their names, he was satisfied the noble Lord would not press the Bill in the face of such a remonstrance. It was true the Bill was introduced in a very eloquent speech; but that speech failed in carrying conviction to his mind that the machinery of this Bill was called for. There was one most extraordinary clause in the Bill, which not only gave the Commissioner the power of deciding differences between landlord and tenant, but enabled him to impose a fine of 201. That was putting the landlord under the control of this junto. The landlord would thus be exposed to a vexatious surveillance, and the tenant, though expecting some relief from this measure, would only be seduced by it into the expenses of litigation. It might be said, This law does not apply to your estate, for tenant-right prevails there." But he might say to his tenants, "If you choose to take advantage of this enactment, you must give up that tenant-right under which you have been contented and happy." The tenant-right was interpreted in this way, that when the tenant and his descendant conduct themselves properly and

became the bank where the tenant invested all his savings. The sale of the interest of the tenant on the farm was a guarantee that the fruits of his labour should never be taken away from himself or his family. If their Lordships consulted the blue books on this Table, they would see what extraordinary improvements were effected on those estates where the tenant-right existed. It was a mistake to suppose that compensation was what was required. What the tenants wanted was security for their tenure. But, then, a mistaken notion had got abroad as to that security. Tenant-right and fixity of tenure were very different things. The latter system established in favour of the tenant a proprietary right, and was a violation of the principle of ownership of land. Fixity of tenure, in short, was a system as mischievous, as tenant-right-properly understood and under proper limitations, it would be beneficial. At present, however, the spirit of improvement was so active in Ireland, that he thought things would go better if left to themselves, than were they to attempt to force measures like the present, in opposition to the decided feeling of everybody connected with Ireland. He believed that the Bill was disapproved of by all the noble Lords connected with Ireland, who had expressed an opinion on the subject; it was disapproved of by an individual in another place who was supposed to represent the feeling of a majority of the Roman Catholics of Ireland; it was disap proved of by Mr. Sharman Crawford, who formerly submitted a measure on this subject to the other House of Parliament; and yet the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) persisted in pressing it, and had expressed his anxiety that it might pass a second reading that night. He must say that he regarded the principle of this Bill as obnoxious in the highest degree; and he thought their Lordships ought, if possible, to stop it in limine. He held in his hand a protest or remonstrance against the Bill signed by thirty-six Peers, having property in Ireland; a document which, as it embodied the feelings of so important a body, he would read to the House. It stated that

"We the undersigned Peers, connected by property with Ireland, having given our best consideration to the Tenant Compensation

The Earl of Wicklow observed, that he had said nothing but what the noble Marquess might read in the newspapers of the day.

absolutely and indispensably necessary. | principle of compulsory compensation to Reports after reports had been laid upon tenants. their Lordships' Table confirmatory of the fact, that in Ireland, circumstanced as that country was, improvements in land could not be carried on. This state of affairs was produced by some causes which could not be removed by legislation, and by others which it was the province of legislation to remove. It was well known that the soil of Ireland was fertile in the extreme, and yet land which might yield fivefold its present produce was lying waste and uncultivated. Now, it might be asked what was the cause of such a state of things? In his opinion the cause was this that neither landlords nor tenants were able to effect the necessary improvements; the landlords could not or would not undertake them, and the tenants were unable to do so. Was it not advisable, then, that, under such circumstances, the Legislature should step in to effect, with justice and fairness to both parties, that which was necessary for the welfare of the country? If this were admitted, the only question was, were the provisions of the Bill now under consideration founded on principles of justice and fairness towards the landlord and the tenant? In his cpinion, the great and fundamental principles of this Bill were just and fair, although it might contain some provisions which in Committee it might be deemed advisable to alter and amend. If, however, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee with the object of altering what he considered one of its main principles, namely, the compulsory clauses, they would at once defeat the great object of the measure.

The Marquess of Clanricarde thought that the speech of the noble Earl was worthy of the Bill to which it related; for as the former exhibited a most original mode of dealing with property, so the latter was not a whit behind in the startling doctrines which it set forth. He had often been asked what was the precise object of the Commission of his noble Friend (the Earl of Devon). To that question, he never found himself in a situation very explicitly to reply. It now appeared, however, from what had fallen from the noble Earl, that the Commission was appointed and sent to Ireland because Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill had miscarried, and it was expedient to find out some other mode of carrying out the VOL. LXXXI. {Series} Third

The Marquess of Clanricarde said, that although he was in the habit of looking to newspapers for information of various kinds, he did not refer to them in order to ascertain the object of a Government measure, more particularly when, as in the present case, he was referred to the Commission itself as setting forth the objects for which the Commission was appointed. The Commission certainly stated that the inquiries of the Commissioners were to be directed to ascertaining whether existing laws might not be so altered as to encourage the cultivation of the soil, and to extend a better system of agriculture; but it did not contain a word as to any compensation to be afforded to tenants for improvements they might effect. He thought the noble Earl had very justly stated that if they struck out the compulsory clauses they would do away with the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill before them was to secure to the tenant compensation for improvements he might have executed on his farm; improvements whereof the owner in fee derived the permanent benefit. If such were the principle of the measure, it was one which stood in much need of practical improvement and application in England and in Scotland, as well as in Ireland, for they had often heard that amendments of the law of landlord and tenant in Great Britain were very desirable. He did not know whether or not such were the case, but he would say that the opposition of the people of Ireland to the present measure would be at once withdrawn if they only struck out of the Bill one clause-the 28th, the shortest of them all-providing that the provisions of the measure should extend only to Ireland. No such Bill would be entertained for a moment if proposed to be applied to this country; and were such an attempt to be made, he would like to hear the indignant eloquence with which the noble Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Richmond) would oppose it. But what was there in the circumstances of Ireland to make it necessary to have recourse to "violation of the rights of property," as the noble Eail 20

many of those noble Lords with whom he usually acted, and whose opinions on such a subject were entitled to far more weight and authority than his, yet he should not do justice to the views he had long entertained of the defects of the law, and of the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland, if he did not express his entire concurrence in the main principles of the Bill, and if he did not give it in the present stage-without, however, committing himself to the details of the measure-his cordial support. He fully admitted what had been stated by his noble Friend as to the great extent of the improvements now going on in Ireland, ble Earl opposite in some degree underand he was disposed to think that the norated the extent of the progress now makspoke in the strongest terms on the subject. ing. The Report of the Land Commission improvement, the necessity for the present But he believed that, notwithstanding that Bill existed in the peculiar circumstances of Ireland-circumstances differing entirely from those of this country, in respect of the relation of landlord and tenant. It was

termed it? What was it which made it advisable that in that country the rights of property should be violated? Was it thought that they were held too sacred there? Was it deemed that justice had been so strictly administered in Ireland, that it was expedient to relax its sway? Of all countries over which the Crown had sovereignty, Ireland was the one in which they should be most cautious of enacting any such law? What had of late years been the drift of their Irish legislation? Had it not been, as far as they could, to assimilate the laws of that country to those of Britain? And if they meant to preserve tranquillity-to support the Union-they must persevere steadily in that course of legislation. It was a mistake to suppose that the Bill was opposed only on the part of the landlords. It would be opposed also by the tenants, and justly so; because it was one which tended to lessen the feeling of good will which subsisted between the two classes. He reminded the House that the fact was notorious, that improvement was proceed-known to every one connected with land ing at present very rapidly in Ireland-to a greater extent, indeed, than ever had been the case before. There never was a moment when it was less necessary, and less expedient, to interfere between landlord and tenant, than at the present time. The spirit of improvement was abroad in both classes. The farmers were every day becoming more willing to be led in the path of advance by their landlords, and more ready to look upon suggested improvements in a proper light, and not as mere innovations upon old-established use and wont. It was not the state of the farmers which ought so much to occupy their attention, as that of the pauper population of Ireland. The Poor Laws had done nothing for that country; and, at this moment, the pressure of pauperism upon land was most severe-greater, indeed, than it had ever been before. He repeated, that he objected to the principle of the Bill. He could never agree to the appointment of a Government officer who was to be enabled to interfere in the most vexatious manner between landlord and tenant. The noble Earl concluded by moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. The Amendment having been put, The Earl of Fortescue said, much as he regretted to differ from so many noble Peers connected with Ireland, and from so

in England-and he believed the same observation was equally applicable to Scotland, though not being personally connected with it, he could not speak so positively of that country-that no landlord let a farm without providing suitable buildings, and seeing that the whole was generally put in good and tenantable repair; and the cases were rare indeed in which the whole expenses, especially as to the buildings, were not borne by the landlord. But in Ireland the direct contrary was the case. In that country-he spoke especially of those parts of it with which he had been personally acquainted-whatever improvements were made, whatever repairs were required in fences or drains, and whatever buildings were necessary to be erected, had to be done, if they were done at all, by the tenant, and at his expense-in some cases, certainly, with more or less assistance from the landlord; which assistance had, he understood, been increasing of late years, but which assistance had been, he believed, until a few years ago, the exception, and a very rare exception, and not the rule. He was, therefore, he thought, justified in saying that the circumstances of the two countries were not similar. Now, he thought if these expenses were to be borne by the tenant, encouragement should be given to him to make them, by insuring him compensation for the outlay, if the tenancy