The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-05 00:00:00

TENANT 3' COMPENSATION BILL.

On the order the adjourned debate on the second
reading of this bill,
Mr. GEORGE strongly opposed the bill, which he cha-
racterised as one for transferring the land of Ireland to the
tenant. He especially directed his objections against the
retrospective clauses. He complained, also, of the time
which the bon. and learned author of this bill had chosen
for reagitating this question ; and while there •were points
in the measure to which he gave his assent, he protested
against the mixing up of these good measures with others
that meant nothing but confiscation.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL defended both the pro-
spective and retrospective clauses of the bill, as consonant
to the principles of natural justice, and fortified himself
by the opinions of Sir Wm. Grant, Lord Eldon, and Lord
Redesdale—none of them weak conservators of the rights
of property—and by the opinions of all writers and expo-
sitors on the principles of natural justice. He quoted the
opinions of these eminent judges, which went to establish
this principle, that if a landlord permitted a tenant to
make improvements without remark, then he was bound
to allow the tenant compensation for those improvements,
either in time or in money.
Mr. MALINS expressed his strong dissent from the
doctrines laid down by the Solicitor-General ; and he was
sure that if Sir Win. Grant and Lord Eldon could have.
heard the principles attributed to them, they would have
started, affrighted, from their graves. He went at great
length into the pi inciples adopted by the Court of Chan-
cery in dealing with questions between landlord and
tenant, which he said were totally opposed to these laid
down by the Solicitor-General : and he was quite sure the .
hon. and learned gentleman would not dare to apply such ,
principles to England. He blushed for the day when*he

beard such doctrines propounded by an English lawyer,
an d that lawyer, the representative of the English Govern-
ment.
Mr. DE PERE made his maiden speech in support of-
the measure, which he characterised as one that had no-
thing to do with party, and as a fair compromise between
I contending interests, which he hoped the house would, in
the present tranquil condition of Ireland, press forward to
a settlement.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE strongly opposed the retro-
spective clause.
Mr. HOR iIAN was surprised to find how forgetful
gentlemen on the other side of the house could be of what
had taken place in previous sessions with regard to this
subject. (Hear.) These hon. gentlemen expressed . such
astonishment and indignation at the Government per-
mitting even the introduction of a bill described to be so
monstrous in its principle and details, that one would
have supposed the question of retrospective compen-
sation had never been heard of till the bill of his hon. and
learned friend ; yet it was in its terms and in its clauses
almost precisely the bill which the House of Commons
passed two years ago. (Hear.) They might recollect,
aiso, that it was under the Government of Lord Derby
that a retrospective clause, more extensive than that in the
present bill, was passed by the house. (Hear.) The prin-
ciple of retrospective compensation was even affirmed by
the House of Lords. (Hear.) The present Government
declined to take up the question, because, after what had
passed during the last few sessions, they despaired of
carrying a bill on the subject. It was then that his hon.
and learned friend said that he would introduce a bill of
his own. His bon. and learned friend accordingly intro-
duced a bill which, being the same in principle and in de-
tails with the bill whien had passed the House of Com-
mons, and had been affirmed by the House of Lords, it
would have been a strange position for the Government to
take if they were to refuse their assent to the introduction
of such a bill. (Hear, hear.) What had been the history
of the tenant co npensation bills? The first bill was intro-
duced about 20 years ago, by Mr. Sharman Crawford.
Ten years after that a bill was intro luced by one of the
largest proprietors in Ireland, .and by a distinguished
member of the Government in 1845. In his speech on that
occasion the noble lord distinctly adopted the principle or
retrospective compensation, and said that the tenant ought
not to be turned out of his farm without compensation,
whether it was his capital or labour that he applied to its
improvement. (Heal.) That was the first occasion when
the principle of retrospective compensation had been advo-
cated in Parliament. (EU ar.) In 1852 the right hon. gentle-
man the then Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Napier)
introduced three bills on the subject of landlord and tenant,
and in one of those bills the principle of retrospective com-
pensation was laid down and carried in that house by a
-majority of two to one. (Hear.) The right hon. gentlerus.n
even laid it down that the retrospective compensation
should be unlimited as to time. (Hear.) The year after,
the initiative was 'taken by the House of Lords, and two
of the bills introduced by the right hon. gentleman passed
the other House of Parliament, but the Tenants' Compen-
sation Bill was dropp-d. Seeing that the principle of re-
trospective compensation had been affirmed by both houses
of Parliament, the people of Ireland might justly explet
to see it carried out by act of Parliament at no distant pe-
riod. (Hear.) The bill of the hon. and learned gentle-
man (Mr. Shee) was divided into prospective clauses and
into retrospective clauses. About the first there was no
difference of opinion on either side of the house. He ad-
mitted, however, that the retrospective operation of the
bill was surrounded with difficulties. (Hear, hear.) His
hon and learned friend (the Solicitor-General) had ahoy+,
however, that the principle of retrospective compensation
was in conformity with natural justice and with the
judgments of their courts of eouity. The honourable and
learned member for Wallingford, however, said, that the
learned judges whom his hon. and learned friend quoted,
namely, Sir W. Grant and Lord Eldon, would have started
from their graves had they heard the doctrine propounded
that a tenant could claim compensation on being evicted
from his lea,e: But his honourable and learned friend
referred to evictions, not of tenants under lease, but ;of
tenants at will, which was the tenure of nine-tenths of the
firms in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) The relation between
landlord and tenant in Ireland was quite exceptional, and
therefore it might be necessary to have an exceptional Ye-
gislation: The fact that the proportion of landlords to the
acreage of Ireland was smaller than .in any country bf
Enrope was at the bottom of all the evils on this subjeot.
(Hear.) In the race of competition for land, the Irith
landlord, without design and withont policy on his part,
became unconsciously absolved from the obligations to
which landlords in other countries were subject. His
became a wilderness, his estate became exhausted, and you
had a miserable people competing for the high privilege bf
earning a scanty subsistence from the land of their both.
(Cheers.) He had never uttered, and had never entertained
any sentiments disrespectful or disparaging to the land-
lords of Ireland. They were themselves, in many cases,
the victims of the circumstances in which they were placetl,
and the evil of impoverished landlords was to be added to
the evil of an impoverished tenautry. (Hear.) The reerJt
was, the total disorganisation of society in Ireland. He
was speaking of a period a good many years back, yeti a
period within the recollection of many who sat in thjit
house. There was no motive for exertion, no reward for
enterprise ; property became insecure, and even life itself
was not safe. Such was the description of the stake of I' -
land given by Liza Earl of Derby, himself a large oropriet r
if
in that country, and a good landlord. The peasant arm cl
himself against the proprietor, and the proprietor had re-
course to insurrections acts, arms acts, suspension of the
Habeas Corpus Act, and to martial law—on one side tlfre
agitation of the people, and military violence on the othe4..
That state of things happily passed away. The people
improved in condition, habits, and character, and the
proprietors became live to a sense of duty. (Hear,
hear.) They bestirred themselves to the performance
of thei r duties in a manner that did them great honor,
and a ground of hope was thus opened up for the
people. There never was an instance on record of a change
so sudden and so happy in its effects ; and it was that
which cast upon them the duty and responsibility of
fostering that change. (Hear.) He should be indeed sorb,
if any party feelings prevented them from promoting it.
The bill was open to several, but not very serious, objec-
tions, and unless these wero removed he would not feel
justified in voting for it. He would state his grounds of
objection. The first was, the bill pointed out a certain
class of improvements, for which it proposed to give com-
pensation. He thought all improvements for which com-
pensation was granted ought to be tangible and material,
which might be easily estimated ; in the former there were
the clams; buildings, wards, and boundary fences ; the
bill added drainage. (Sergeant Shee, " That was in the
former bill.") That might be, but he objected to allowing
compensation for reclaiming .waste lands. His next objec-
tion was, that the 14th clause allowed compensation for all
improvements made before the passing of the act. He
attached considerable importance to the objection of the
hon. member for Wexford as to the amount of litigation
that it would produce-- (hear)—and the advantages that
attended the bill in some respects would be more than
counterbalanced by the insecurity the clause would give
rise to. He would suggest that a period should be filed
beyond which compensation would not run. (Hear, bear.)
He would suggest as an amendment that the amount of
compensation should be limited to a certain sum—say so
many years' rent ; the number could be determined in
committee. He also considered that compensation ought
never to be given to a tenant evicted for breach of contract
or non-payment of rent. If these objections were obviated,
the Government were prepared not only to give their sup
port to the bill in that and the other house, but to forward
it by every means in their power. He would not ask his
hon. friend the member for Kilkenny to make these
changes in 'his bill • he left the question in the hands of
tile house. The Government were anxious to carry the
matter to a successful issue, and not perpela Jo a sham by
making a parade of a measure they knew they could not
carry. Government were pi epared honestly and fairly to take
up the bill if the provision to which they could not heartily
assent were struck out. If the house thought that the bill
ought to be p]a ed in their bands with such conditions
and limitations as that they could honestly support it, and
see their way to a successful issue, they were prepared to
give it every support' both in that and in the other house
of Parliament, which it could derive from being in the
hands of the Government. Having said this much, he
would leave the question with the house,
g gey
tFE i
ng Yt denouncedthose
a.,terat
alterations
i n conductthe b
bill,
tahnedca
lGovernmentled uponforMsur. D
Messrs. Keogh, Fitzgerald, and Ball to redeem the pledges
they gave to the people of Ireland at the last election, and
resign their places in a Government that would not ' support
this bill as it stood.
Mr. H. A. HERBERT would support the second read
ing, though he anticipated but little benefit from it's ope
ration.

Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON contrasted the speeches of
Mr. Horsman and the Solicitor-General, and sail the lat-
ter had gone far to embitter the whole question. With
the suggestions of the Iri h Secretary he generally agreed,
and, trusting that his amendments would. bo carried in
committee, he would recommend his friends to allow the
bill to be read a second time without dividing.
Sir J. FITZGERALD supportel the bill.
L; rd PALMERSTON—Sir, as there is so general an agree-
ment on the second reading of this bill—(no, and cheers)--
I do not say there is a unanimous agreement—but as the
great majority of this house are agreed on the second read-
ing of this bill, I hope that the house will determine to
proceed with the second reading this evening. The course
which her Majesty's Government are prepared to take on
this bill has been fully explained by my right hon. friend
the Secretary for Ireland, and I have nothing to add on
that point to the statement which he has made. I have
heard it said that this is not the proper time for settling
these disputes, but I think the time is peculiarly
favourable. This is a subject which has agitated the
public mind of Ireland for many years, and which gave
rise to the greatest animosities, and to strong differences o'
opinion. The present moment is, as has been said, n-t one
in which these differences of opinion irelikely to rise to the
same height; there is a general content in Ireland; and
this altogether a time when you will find the minds of men
disposed to come calmly to the consideration of any reason-
able proposition. It is true that this bill contemplates. a
condition of things in Ireland different from what °sista in
England or Scotland ; but that arises not hem any fault
of the landlords or the tenants. I concur entirely in wnat
has been stated by the hon. member who has just sat down,
that there are in Ireland landlords as good as those to be
found in any other country. I undertake to say tiles there
are landlords in Ireland better, and who do more for their
tenants than any landlords in England or Scotland. There
are, doubtless, exceptions—landlords who, from their
limited means, are unable tq, do that for their tenants
which they ought or could wish—but Irepudiate altogether
the wholesale abuse which has been lavished at times on
the landlords of Ireland as a body of proprietors. (Hear.)
On the other hand I repudiate the charges which have been
made against the tenantry of Ireland, and I believe they
are as capable of industrious energy as any tenantry in the
world. The evils of Ireland are to be traced in tse former
history of that country. "What has been that history? It
has been a record of civil war, of rebellion, of 'confiscation,
of penal laws, of exclusion of the largest part of the nation
from the privileges of social exertion, and of the domination
of a majorityto the religion of a minority. All these things
had excited bitter animosities ; but these animosities have
passed and are extinguished, with some differences. There
still remains some defects, and they belong to a condition of
things which this bill is designed toremedy. In Ireland, up
to half a century ago, the land was not held in the way in
which it is occupied in England andfolcotland. Lands in that
country were let to one person, who sublet them to one or
more persons, who snbletted them again, and thus by 2 or
3 gradations middle men were Interposed between the
landlord and the occupier. Then what was the tenure of
the land in Ireland ? The leases were at first given at a
preposterous length—for 61 years, or three lives. The
landlord was then a stranger on his own estate nod he had
no interest in the occupying tenant, and the occupying
tenant bad no affection for him. There was, in fact, no
person interested in the improvement of the country.
Why should the landlord see to the improvement of the
land ? Why should the middle man ? Why should the oc-
cupying tenant, who was too peer to-do so ? Therefore, the
greater part of Ireland was in that condition, that there
were no persons connected with the ownership who were
interested in the improvement of the estates. When these
ion Imo expireit the landlords went to the other ox•