The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-15 00:00:00

n
/rJc,iltrb, ;4,T-4,,fittu

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(THIS EVENING.)
(Continued from our _First Edition.)
Mr. NAPIER then proceeded to criticise the bill of the
hon. and learned member for Kilkenny. He denied that
the custom recited in the bill of the learned Sergeant was
the tenant right of Ulster.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE said the "fair valuation" men-
tioned in his bill meant, in point of fact, a valuation
which was perfectly fair. (Laughter.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland said that
might often be a matter of opinion. (Hear, hear.) He
himself always had opposed, and always would oppose, '
any interference between the landlord and tenant on the
question of rent. It was a matter of commercial ar-
rangement, and although he allowed there might be many
cases where injustice was done, yet the true remedy was
social improvement—it could not be done by any legisla-
tion. He also objected to the principle of arbitration
contained in the bill. Generally speaking, the arbitra-
tors were mere partizans of either party, and had re-
ceived their instructions beforehand, and to quote the
words of the hon. member for Cork (Mr. V. Scully), in
the book which he had written on this subject, they
might as well attempt to fix the rate of wages for the
labourer, or the price at which the farmer should sell
his cow or sheep, by arbitration, as to fix the rent of his
farm. He was also opposed to the cancelling of arrears
of rent, which was provided for in that bill. No doubt
there might be cases of great hardship, but these could
not be met by legislation. He could not see his way to
the adoption of the principles of the bill of the hon. and
learned gentleman. The right lion. and learned gentle-
man concluded by appealing to hon. members on both
sides of the house to sink all personal and party feelings,
and endeavour, in concert, to provide an agricultural
code for Ireland, which should aid in the lasting improve-
ment of that country.
Mr. LUCAS said that the right lion, and learned
gentleman had not answered the question put to him by
the hon. and learned member for Ennis. On the
last occasion, when this subject was under consideration,
it was understood that the bill of the hon. and learned
member for Kilkenny (Mr. Sergeant Shee), and the Go-
vernment bill on the subject of tenant right, were to be
referred together to a select committee, with a view to
obtaining a full, fair, and unbiassed inquiry into the
principles of both bills, and arriving at a conclusion as
to which was the best for Ireland. Since then, however,
the noble lord at the head of the Government had, in
answer to a question put to him in another place, de-
clared that whatever might be the conclusion arrived at
by the committee, her Majesty's Government were
firmly, irrevocably, and for ever pledged against the
principle of the bill of the hon. and learned gentleman
the member for Kilkenny. He wished to ask the right
hon. and learned gentleman whether they were ready to
go into that committee with the Government, pledged in
anticipation of the result of the committee, whatever it
might be, with their ears closed against all evidence
brought forward, and pre-determined not to be converted
under any circumstances ? Was this to be an illusory
inquiry, which could have no results ? With regard to
the bill of !the right hon. gentleman, he objected to it,
because he believed that, instead of its being a Liberal-
Conservative measure, which they on that side of the
house believed to be what was required for Ireland, it
was in its essence a revolutionary measure. The
tenant's case had never yet been put before the country
fairly and fully ; and it was for that reason that they on
that side of the house wished to have a committee, before
which they could lay the tenant's case for the first time.
The Devon Commission, and the Blue Books which had
been published in such numbers, had never given the
shadow of a representation of his case. Take one
instance, it was a dispute whether landlords had
imposed a rent upon improvements in Ireland.
The report of the Devon Commission stated that
very little evidence of such cases had been brought
before them, and the right hon. and learned gentleman
opposite, in the book of Mr. Ferguson, which he had
adopted and improved on this assertion, and stated that
such a case seldom occurred. Now, the rental of Ire-
land in 1780 was 6,000,0001., and in 1850 it was
12,000,0001., giving a balance of 6,000,0001. in that
time, an increase quite as great as that which had taken
place in the rental of England in that time. Improve-
ments, then, must have been made during that period, to
cause such an increase in the rental. By whom had they
been effected ? Everybody allowed that they were not
the work of the landlord, and no one doubted that they
were the work of the tenant, whom it was the fashion
to calumniate as listless, idle, and unimproving. Weighed
down with all the oppressive restrictions which were laid
on his industry, subjected to all manner of difficulties,
the tenant farmer of Ireland had by his improvements
raised the rental of Ireland as much as the landlord and
tenant working together had raised it in 'England. The
same was the case if they looked at the rental per acre.
In 1780, the rent per acre was, according to Arthur
Young, 6s. 4d., and in the year just before the famine,
, it had risen to 16s. or 17s. per acre, taking good land
with bad all over the country. The same was
the case with regard to the produce of Ireland.
In 1780, the produce per acre of oat land was 282
bushels, of barley land also 282 bushels. In 1850 the
produce of oat land had risen to 381 bushels per acre, of
barley land to 391 bushels. Now, in 1840 the produce
RnrrlAnd ws...nly 36 bushels, and of bar-
ley land 32 bushels ; so that the Irish farmer had im-
proved quite as much as the English tenant farmer had.
The same was the case with nearly every other branch
of Irish agriculture at least so far as he could ascertain
by the inquiries which he had made ; and he wished for
a committee, in order that these facts might be laid before
it, with all the strength of truth and indisputability. The
dark side of the Irish agricultural system had hitherto
invariably been laid before the house, but he wished to
prove to it that there was a bright side. He thought it
could be proved that pretty nearly all the improvements
in Ireland had been made by the tenant farmer, the land-
lords had made no improvement whatever, and if Ireland
had been left to their enterprise, their habits of saving,
and their aptitude for agricultural pursuits, the land
would have been in the same sterile and barren condi-
tion as it was 200 years ago. He had no wish to exag-
gerate his case, but he was desirous of showing that the
Irish farmers had made more improvements than they
had credit for, or than they ever had any encourage-
ment to make, and to convince the right hon. gentleman
that if he would give the tenant farmer a right to call
that which was his property, his own, if he would give
him security and encouragement for improvement. Ire-
land still presented in this class of men an immense .and
magnificent machinery for amelioration. The hon. gen-
tleman then proceeded to comment on the principle of
compensating periods, which he declared to be
totally inapplicable to Ireland under any circum-
stances. He had no hestation in saying that as a
rule the landlords of Ireland put a rent upon their
tenants, which was neither more nor less than a rob-
bery—(cries of " No," and counter cheers)—and then
the right honourable gentleman came over to that house,
and told them that the privilege of being robbed for 10,
20, or 30 years was a sufficient equivalent for the im-
provements they had made. Acting from a re-
port made to Lord Clarendon by the En-
cumbered EStates Court Commission, he found
it stated that the rent of farms on a great number
of the estates brought into that court was not only dispro-
portionate to their value, but much larger than could by
any possibility be collected from the tenants. That was
the case in large districts in Ireland ; in fact, it was the
general system now to put an impossible rent upon
the tenant, and the difference between good and
bad landlords, was the manner in which their rent was
exacted. If the landlord was a good landlord, he did
not attempt to exact, or, at least, he did it with mercy ;
but the bad landlord exacted it all, or, at least, kept it
hanging over the tenant, as an instrument by which to
reduce him to the condition of a serf and a slave. The
honourable gentleman proceeded to argue at
great length, citing a number of instances
from information which had been afforded to him, that
the tenant farmer of Ireland had hitherto received little
or no compensation for his improvements, and that no
period of possession could possibly compensate for im-
provements which he might make. With regard to the
Ulster tenant-right, he was quite, willing to concede to
the right honourable gentleman that it was not pro-
perly defined in Sharman Crawford's Bill ; all that he
argued was, that it was a custom under which millions
of property had been created, and what he asked for
was, that it should form the subject of investigation.
He contended that as the retrospective clauses of the
right hon. gentleman's bill confiscated all improvements
which had been made, so the prospective clauses would
prevent any improvements from being effected. If the
bill had been in force up to this time, the improvements
which had been made would never have been attempted.
He hoped that the right hon. gentleman would employ
the recess in reconsidering his opinion with regard to
compensating periods. For his own part, he should go
into committee on this bill perfectly open to conviction,
and willing to assist the right honourable gen-
tleman, if he would give them credit for
their good-will, and to elevate an enduring monument
to his reputation, and by enabling him to settle this
question permanently in Ireland, and to heal up the
bloody feuds and discords which it had excited in that
country—to hand down his name to posterity as the
greatest benefactor Ireland had ever known.
Mr. DRUMMOND said though the hon. member's
speech was full of interesting matter and valuable detail,
it had little connection with the motion before the house.
It seemed to be an attack on the Attorney-General for
Ireland, for introducing a bill before he had submitted
the whole question to the committee, but if he had done
that, there would have been no chance of passing a mea-
sure this session. He admitted everything which
the honourable member had stated with respect to
landlords and tenants. (Hear.) It had been said
that the number of tenants in Ireland holding less than
30 acres were about 42,000, and he admitted that they
ought to be secured by some means in their possessions,
but it was impossible not to see that there was great
difficulty in arriving at such a result. Tenants in
Ireland presented an entirely exceptional case to
those in any other country—they were neither
like Englishmen, Scotchmen, Frenchmen, nor Dutch-
men, and, of course, must be content to submit
to the inconvenience of their peculiar position. Their
case, being an exceptional one, ought to be dealt with by
an exceptional measure, which should cease as soon as
the circumstances which rendered it necessary no longer
exist. He disliked passing laws for any separate part of
the kingdom, and would prefer that the word Ireland
should be omitted from their vocabulary in mat-
ters of' legislation. (Hear, hear.) He believed