The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-05 00:00:00

fourth Vibitton

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN 1.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Tlre following Bi!ls were read a third time, and
pass'ed:—
Ipr,wich Dock.
L ondon, Tilbury, and Southend Railway.
The following Bills, as amended, were considered, and
agreed to:—

Aberdeen Boys' and Girls' Hospital.
Dumfries and Maxwelltown Waterworks.

Haw Bridiaand P.oads.
London Gas Light Company (Amendment of Act, &c.
Portrush Harbour.

st,.iialiE;;.
kilverston Waterworks.
Yeovil and Ilchester Turnpike Trusts.

ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS ON PRIVATE

COMMITTEES.

Mr. WILSON PATTEN moved, that the Committee
on the Group FF of Private Bills be revived, and do
consist of the four Members who have signed the requi-
site declarati on, together with such Members as shall
have been appointed by the Committee of Selection,
under Standing Order No. 86; and that the Committee
have ler,ve to sit and proceed on Thursday next,
at tredve o'clock. The motion, the Honour-
able Gentleman said, was rendered necessary
by the neglect of Members named to serve on Cora-
mYtteee on private Bills to inform the Committee of Se-
leotion in good time when it happened that they were
disqualified from serving on such Committees. Owing
to this neglect, parties had been put to great expense,
amounting in some instance to 2001.
PETITIONS.
A number of petitions were presented in favour of
the Tenant-right Bill from various parts of Ireland, by
Mr. O'Flaherty, Mr. V. Scully, Mr. Monsell, Mr.
0. Higgins, Mr. Moore (4), and Mr. S. Crawford (12).
Lord BROOKE presented a petition from a place in
Ireland against the Charitable Trusts Bill.
Mr. MOORie also presented a petition from a place in
Yorkshire to the same effect.
Mr. V. SMITH presented a petition from Dumferm-
line against the Militia Bill.
Lord D. STUART presented a similar petition from
a society in Edgeware-road.
Mr. MOORE presented a petition from a place in
Ireland against the Ecclesiastical Titles Act.
TENANT RIGHT (IRELAND) BILL.—AD-
JOURNED DEBATE.
On the reading of the order of the day for the resump-
tion of this debate,
_ _

Mr. CONOLLY said that he felt that he was justified
in talking the course which he had pursued on a former
occasion, as in his opinion the House was then
about to divide on this Bill on a false issue.
The Bill in his opinion was nothing more than
a sYstern of compulsory valuation, without giving
the landlord any security for his rights.
Certainly the word compensation was used very fre-
quently in the Bill, but the system of arbitration, by
which a fair compensation was to be arrived at, was
imperfect and never could be worked satisfactorily. He
could scarcely believe that Hon. Gentlemen opposite
wished to carry this Bill, for he could not insult their
common sense so fir as to suppose that they would have
introduced such a Bill had they wished to have it car-
ried. It embodied a principle which was opposed to the
practise of England, and he thought of Ireland too. He
had not only been an advocate of compensation for im-
provement, but he had acted upon it, and he thought he
had some right to speak on the subject.—(Hear.) This
Bill was introduced to keep up the cry in Ireland, not
to settle the question between landlord and tenant, but
to unsettle it. This was a course which was not honest
by those who advocated tenant right, not honest by
this House, and not even by the supporters cf this Bill.
He would go on now to point out what tenant-right
really was. The tenant had a perfect right to sell his
improvements to any one whom the landlord might ap-
point. Tenant right did rot depend upon tenure at all,
for the tenant at will had just as many rights as the
tenant at lease; and he was at perfect liberty, if
he so thought fit, to sell his improvements
to the incoming tenant. Tenant right, how-
ever, differed under different circumstances; for
instance, tenant right on one estate might extend to
twenty years' purchase, while in the adjoining estate it
might not reach to more:than two years' purchase. It de-
pended upon the feelings and situation of the landlord
whether tenant right was high or low. Tenant right
was nothing less than the good will of the tenant, and
when the tenant had the confidence of his landlord it
ranged very high, as indeed was the case in the north
of Ireland. And yet the supporters of this Bill came
forward to abuse the landlords of Ulster.—(Hear, hear.)
Tenant right was nothing less than one of mutual confi-
dence between the landlord and tenant, and it was im-
possible to deal with it by legislative enactments. On
the contrary, a system of legislation proposed by the
Bill would undermine such confidence, and he appealed
to Irish Members, as their countryman, to pause before
they adopted this Bill. In not doing so they would not only
he) acting injudiciously, but inflicting a great injustice
upon the landed interest of Ireland, and he hoped the
House would not consent to interfere with the system of
tenant right that at present prevailed in Ireland, which
he was happy to say was the result of a long continu-
ance of peace. This Bill, in Act, would increase the
civil and religious discord which reigned in the north
el Ireland, for the sake of promoting some paltry elec-
tioneering scheme or other. The material interest and
the prosperity of Ireland required that this Bill should
be thrown out, and he should give it his most deter-
mined opposition.—(Hear.)
Mr. MONSELL was not disposed to underrate the
itnportance of the question, and he for one did not
regret that the debate had been adjourned. The tenant
right which the last speaker had referred to prevailed
in Ulster, and there great prosperity existed, bat the
same confidence or prosperity was not to be found else-
where, and hence arose the necessity for a Bill of this
nature.—(Hear, hear.) He was by no means anxious
to see a system of compulsory compensation established,
but no such system was involved in this Bill; and he
was, therefore, at a loss to understand why it should
be opposed on that ground.—(Hear, hear.) He would,
if the House would permit him, call attention to
the urgency of this case. The existing law relating
to land in Ireland had worked badly in all times
and under all circumstances, as would be found by a re-
ference to the writings of Dean Swift, Arthur Young,
Lord Clare, and other writers, who had commented upon
the social condition of the tenant-farmers of Ireland.
'—(Hear, hear.) Most of the crimes and evils
which Ireland had suffered from might be traced to
some dispute about the occupation or letting of land, and
therefore the inference appeared to him to be obvious
that the system ought to be altered, unless the House
thoughtr it was the disposition of the people, and not the
lfective state of the law, that was the cause of
allLco
could heir
naiseries.—(Hear, hear.) He, however,
see nothin in the Irish character to induce the
former belief,
for directly the Irishman got out of his
own country he became an enterprising man, and emi-
nently industrious and contented.—(Hear, hear.) All
authorities concurred in this
opinion, and if they could be
consulted he had no do
him that to doubt that they would agree with
make the Irishman as estimable
in his own country, they must confer upon him the ad-
vantages of the principle containedin this Bill.—(Hear,
hear.) In theory the existing
as that which prevailed in g _system was the same
land, but the misfortune
and, that
hen
wanted Ireland
was it viatshat ut
the
same,
practice,t
all
privileges should be conceded to the Irishprtaecealneat.
farmer that were enjoyed by the English tenant-farmer.
—(Hear, hear.) In England and in France no landlord
could eject any tenant without compensating him for the
improvements; and the same system prevailed in Den-
mark, Massachusetts, a new country, and several
European States, and he was at a loss to understand
why the same
principle could not be enforced for Ireland
by legislative enactment.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord NAAS was anxious to offer a very few observa-
tions upon this very
House came to a decision.—(Cries of Bear, hear.")
Ho admitted that the principle of compensation was,
to 'some extent ,
to be found in this Bill, but it
was introduced as a peg to bang upon certain other
Pr iccipies of an exceedingly dangerous Billcharacter.--
rstlear, hear.) The principal feature of thiswas not
compensation but it was that part of it which would
hereafter, if it was carried, force the landlord to submit
his rents to the arbitration of a body of tenants.—(Hear.)
Nown he for on© never could consent to any such
.prin-
ciple of law; it existed in Co country on the face of the
globe that h was acquainted with; and as it was totally
at variance with the rights of property, he must call
upon the House to reject the 13:11.—(Hear, hear.)
in fact,
Compensation, he repeated, was nor,
the leading principle of this Bill.--(ffear, hear.)
The Bill introduced b the Hon. Member some years
aces was only part oft he present Bill. The present
Bill was adapted to embody the tenant league in Ire-
land, whose principles the Noble Lord considered
to be as dangerous as the wildest ones
advanced during the storms of the French
revolution. In the year 1851 a speech was made by a
reverend gentleman in Ireland, in which an opinion was
advanced that when a landlord failed to perform
Lie duty he ought to be removed. Another
reverend gentleman had stated that landlords
were only tolerated for the benefit of the
People, and when they were found not to be beneficial
they should be removed. The Noble Lord had many
other proofs that the principle of this Bill was to deprive
the landlord of all power.—('' No," from the Opposition.)
lt was recited that a tenant should not be evicted unless
e received compensation or was allowed to sell his in-
terest
to a solvent tenant; but that was the custom of the
sor ntey now, and the Bill proposed to make that compel-
lorti*.etele hitherto was optional on the part of the land-
The first and second clauses were nothing more than
an
"lbc'di'ele.f the favourite dogmas of the tenant
league, and
of
tiree theory of Mr. Rutherford, that the
barren state, landlord was the mere land in its
and that the tenant's prerty con-
sisted of all the additional value whichop had been
given to it by cultivation
the Bill was compulsory eaie'aiio &c. The principle of
which was
novel. in legislation, and he did tof en
not thinrkat'principle so
unjust would ever be entertained by the House.—(Hear
hw ° er.) The effect of the Bill would be t
prevente
land-
lcrds taking any direct ,interest their p\c‘r7thy,t an
Rio convert them into mere rent chargers P. r
improvements were made neither the landlord
nora" his
heirs would derive any benefit from them; therefore
the Bill would shut out the great source of hope for ira.