The Sun.
London, England, 1852-02-11 00:00:00

some r,ecurity for his outlay. The landlords, however,
were unable to grant valid leases in most instances, in
consequence of the complicated nature of the tenure of
Is.cd in Ireland; and therefore he (Mr. Sadleir) hoped
that her Majesty's Government would give the House an
intimation that the law of real property in that country
would be put on a more rational basis before the close of
the present session of Parliament.
rein B. OSBORNE said if there was any reason more
urgent than another why something effectual should be
done in the matter at issue, it was that to do so would
be to take away a claptrap which was used in Ireland
to obtain seats in that House by people who had no
practical knowledge whatever of the land question. He
considered, however, that to support the measure of the
Hon. Member was a waste of time, because the question
that should bo dealt with was compensation for improve-
ments. He trusted. therefore, that the Government
would do something to effect that object; though he was
free to admit that they had very little encouragement to
proceed, as regarded the fewness of the suggestions
with which they were favoured, as well as the difference
that existed between the views of the several sup-
porters of the measure. Notwithstanding this, however,
he (Mr. B. Osborne) believed that the south of Ireland
was emerging from the storm, in despite of the violent
speeches of the clerical agitators of the north. All
ti-at an honest man could ask, was compensation for
impreveatents made; but the measure of the Han'
Member was one for the encouragement of the
theories of the Presbyterian agitators of the north
of Ireland, whom nothing would content but an
entire change in the possession of property altogether,
giving the landlords only the quit rent of the soil. There
was, however, a difficulty in speaking out upon this sub-
ject in Ireland; but, vevertheless; the Bill of the Ilan'
Member was looked on with great suspicion. That
Hon. Gentleman had gone to the south in company 'with
the Presbyterian egitators of the north; and anything
like the language used by them he (M.r. B. Osborne) had
never heard. The i inguage imputed to the Cathoi°
clergy was mild in comparison. It her Majesty's G 0
verntnent, therefore, koew their own interest, they wan'
not let the question tide over this session, especially on
the eve of a general election. If, however, the nouons
of the Hon. Member for Rochdale on tenant-right wer,e,
what he (Mr. B. Osborne) fancied them to be, from a"
he could gather of his speech, he was quite certain the
House would never sanction such communistic doctrines,
as the Hon. Member propounded; for in no respect din
they seem to him (Mr. B. Osborne) to differ from those
propounded by M. Proudhon, Ita propriete c'est
(Hear. hear.) He should like to see an honest tenant"
right Bill—a Bill for 'be protection of the landlord As
well as the tenant, seeing that it was well known
an Irish landlord might be considered very lucky
who got a quarter of his rent. He should very
much wish a sensible Bill on the suaject was introduced;
and the Hon. Member for Manchester had, he was in'
formed, a measure of that nature prepared, which be
now called en him to produce. Half the coercion 1016
for Ireland arose out of the defective state of the laws
regulating landed property in that country. To s
cions alteratiun in that law he (Mr. B. Osborne)W"
favourable; and he therefore thought it behoved her env
jesty's Government to declare their intentions, for telie
satisfaction of the people of Ireland, and not to abuse°
out the measure of the Hon. Member.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I shall state generally the course
pursued by her Majesty's Government in respect to thist
question. We :wind, when we came into office, the
certain Bills had been introduced on the subject, and
these we took as the foundation of those measur"
which we proposed. In more than one session s°l'e,
._,
sequently my Right Honourable Friend the Secretary
for Ireland introduced Bills having reference to the
question. One, at least, of these was sent before a
Select Committee of the House, on which were the lion'
and Learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Keogh), the gal:
Member for Carlow, and other HOD. Members. lux
Right Hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland attended
that Committee with great assiduity, and his report to
me was, that after many discussions an agreement its
to
the clauses to be altered and amended was arrived at.
That Bill proceeded no further, though it was one whe,l,'
I hope, came under the designation of a " sensible" Din
though I must say that this was no proof that it would
be acceptaele in Ireland—(Laughter)—or this reason;
I found it to be the butt of a great agitation in th!,
country, and that the agitators on this question pointesa
to it as the perfection of an infamous and oppressice
measure. That was the way it was met in that countre'::
After this peat excitement which had been raised en
the subject I bad an interview with those gentlemen 'ad°
advocated most loudly the rights of the tenants; and ti_r,
result was, that it was quite clear the clauses of the 13ii;
would not carry out the object which they had A
view, and that, consequently, if it was passed
into a law they would call meetings all over
Ireland, and create a great agitation on the subject'
So far from settling the question, therefore, I found obi
Bill would be the means of exciting the country still
more, and it was not pressed forward. It did not , follow
however, that it was not a sensible Bill because the ste-
rations that were proposed to be made in it by theta
gentlemen did not, in my view of the case, deal fair Ye
with the rights of property. The Hon. Baronet t,
Member for Cavan has alluded to the sort of tenantsrign;
that exists in the north of Ireland, and I mast "7 tbr!..
I approve of it. But one of the things which those ge
tlemeu wished to do with the Bill was to introduce re
with the force of law into the south of Ireland, where
it
has never existed, and where, if introduced as they Fi
posed it, the effect would be to take away a part of Intbresira
property from the present proprietors
portion of the country, and confer it upon other proved
You may say that these are tenants who have, its land by the judicious expenditure of capital ur-•• ais
and there are some I admit to whom this descripttei
_0
applicable, bat the measure proposed was
of land niart'ese
generaticim
its application—it was wholesale in its °P,eera the
—and consequently it gave advantages , es-
idle and to the improvident man at the bast
pense of the landed preprietor, to which he red
no sort of claim whatsoever. it, therefore, aPPeaula
to me to be quite impossible that such a law as we cot
consent to introduce on the subject would not he rl3;
source of peace for the country, but, on the cotltill
it
would be the fertile source of agitation and exe--e 001 te
The Hon. Member for Manchester was o
good of at
gaw
transmit to trie certain prepositions, the result f bps
observation, as a summary of the means which suggof the
themselves to him fur the oermatient improvecsent at to
land tenure is Ireland. These propositions I sheer the
Ireland where they were very much approved of of the
members of the Government, by the law officersatho•
Crown, and by other persons of experience and
,ach I
city on the subject; but by reason of the causes wtbay
have stated, they all came to the resolution that wawa
would not lead to a better state of the relations 1, wOO
existed between landlord and tenant in Ireland.
„co to
therefore, impossible for me under these circuesstat'well,
undertake to introduce a measure on the subject. temper
then, I came to the resolution—considering the twee
of the people of Ireland—considering the extrarge, it'
of the propositions that had been made—consideritnor the
fact, all the circumstances of tne case, I "mien lair°.
resolution that there would be no advanto„oo 'ono° t°
clueing those measures which alone I could Pr:- whet'
this House on the subject. The question itiedifeculti'
you come to legislate on it, is ono of infinite
aid in-
The Hon. Member for Carlow said that we sli;`",tience
troduce, by means of legislative measures, c n" tea,
between landlord and tenant in Ireland. I tell the se
1
amen , t but f tint
uence of a state o so;
it must arise as a necessaryActfeeling
isw3sreoqmoted on the one Okra"
ciety its which good
ford,pand on the other part we
tool
d
him. Be only desired that the bad laws which ha
bythe theeo ncdounceltuocit
tohte the
tenant.lan
Mr. SADLEIR said the Noble Lord misunders
isted should be repealed.
the
Lord J. RUSsELL—This, however, lies at
bottom of the whole question. You cannot produe
buildingse by
andtwhhaoetrfe
ngetrhie
legislation a feeling of confidence as regards agricultlift;
property ; it must arise from tho satisfactory relati°o
of the parties. Take the case of places in Eligia
whereltae
nnd.n, t thereicnont:japotefiioroni
perfect
noconjointly
toe r
confidencee etlease,
advantage of the other. Then, again, take
hociscuepaaiteiou
case of Scotland, where leases are of a more perelyne°bist
mercial character, and where the tenant enters ne,""este
a t e from t
cultivationhe
of a ease
efrmtheofprloBfitorto2Obovedaersrivheaving
the land durieg that period. In bet
orii,
the parties are satisfied, If, however, no such cit bi
deuce existed, I defy any Government to establish 5
taehterjvalanvildiliiilr°dll:-ttatite:
legislative measures.—(Hear.) But even it you froinurty,
14w in the case there will be so end of the di6et the
The custom in England is for the landlord to erect
the
requisite farm-buildings. If you say, however, ins.
NO'
tenant is absolutely entitled to the value of the inlciag-d
merits, you will give no voice whatever to the la
„. unite
in the matter. Suppose that a landlord wishes to
et 50
five farms of 10 acres acres each into ono farnelii",r 511
acres, will you say that he shall pay compensation }os be
the buildings on each of these farms, when eernae'keas
will be obliged to knock down the greatest part o 1 70.
in pursuance of his design? This is only one of tn where
culties. In a country like Ireland particularly the
tbe
litigation is looked upon as a sort of pastime of
people, if you introduce such a measure, instead 'ne„ ca
proving the land, you will have continual suits g°flort stunder its provisions. In this state of things, thered
tbst
the end of the last session of Parliament, I state „oat',
I was not prepared to introduce a Bill on the taisell
But it is asked—if you do not introduce a BOLL.' st, to
—why not permit the Bill of the Hon. Gentle', awl
pass? Those who ask this question, however, 50.7,,0tire
have no exact knowledge of the extent of that me. for
or its object. But, if this be the case, what t' vie brini
discontent would it not be, that, not only would r of
in no Bill ourselves, but that we let in anotharalel may
which we know nothing of the clauses. The -I',%sid to
have clauses of some use, and as such we are "le tbaet
take it into consideration. But I cannot agra2ae
there should be tenant-right throughout Irelaue eeeft.oo,
with the Hon. Baronet the Member for lecilcaa
agree
that, not only should such a measure sot be
now, but that whenever it is introduced it shar
of a temperate character. h her
Mr. KEOGH said it appeared that thoegdoe
Majeste's Government were unwilling to int,rf, were
measure of their own upon the subject, still ttlY7 the
riellu
quite willing to toy with that of his Ho • F
it should
Member for Rochdale, lest their opposition to when
government in Ireland. In resent, the
0
prejudice their
crime prevailed in Ireland more than at Ireland pr
Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for ce a for
posed u
e t
that the Noble Lord's Bill, then intro
aed6 ca bet
e
P•
the repression of crime, should not be aestioa o
that a measure for the settlement of tne
landlord and tecant should be introduced'oved all
Who, then, were the parties $031101,10" Lon't
hoar.)
coquetteri t!_lo qui;Aiun? The t CO,ti
himself had else admitted that the gen.
,be
nature ot
clime in leelaed, was the uncertain Lrd, frail'
and landlord question. The Noble r after
tenure • a gill Yeti
the time he came into office, brought la