The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-01 00:00:00

THE MILITIA FOR IRELAND.

The Earl of WICKLOW inquired whether it was the
intention of the Government to propose during the pre-
sent session any measure for embodying the Irish mi-
litia ; and if so, whether they proposed to form it under
the old system established during the war, or under
that adopted during the peace'
_ _

The Earl of ABERDEEN said a bill would be intro-
duced this session in the other house by which power
would be taken to modify the existing law respecting
the militia in England. By that law power was ,given to
extend the 80,000 men which had been raised to 120,000.
It was now proposed to vary that and apply the act to
Ireland. The Government intended to embody in Ire-
land a militia of 30,000 men, and in Scotland a militia of
10,000 men. It was, however, not proposed to embody
the Irish militia this year.
LEASING POWERS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE moved the s;cond
reading of this bill. He stated that this, and the
Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill, the second read-
ing of which he Would also move, were the same, with
some minor exceptions,
,as those introduced into this
house last session. The noble earl entered into an ex-
planation of the main provisions of the bill, which he
observed had been carefully framed, so as to obviate any
interference with the rights of property. He believed
that a sound system of reform should be adopted—that
they should reform where it was necessary—and that
they should not reform merely because they thought that
some other state of the law would be more applicable.
Their case in Ireland was this : it was admitted that
they required a reform—a long time had been spent in
discussing what that reform should be—they had evi-
dence concerning the state of landlords and tenants in
Ireland, and they certainly ought now to legislate on the
subject ; but in England they should not do so, as it was
not required ; although there was not a single provision
in the bill which he did not believe to be just and equit-
able,r and if the state of circumstances in England re-
quired reform, there was not a provision of it that he
should not be ready to advocate for that country as well
as for Ireland. (Hear, hear.) He bad one great ground
for bringing this subject under their lordships' notice.
He had been for some years in the habit of attending to
the management of lauded property in Ireland, and he
found himself met at every turn by the difficulties of the
law when he endeavoured to improve the estate, the
occupiers of the estate, and the cottier population. It
was from his experience of the faulty state of the law
that he earnestly desired that a just and fair change
should take place, and with that view he submitted those
bills for their lordships' consideration.
Lord MONTEAGLE did not wish to oppose the
second reading of these bills, but he could not acquiesce
in it without calling the attention of their lordships to
some principles involved in them, against which he
strongly protested. Prom the reign of Geo. 111., down
to the present time, 60 bills had been passed for the pur-
pose of regulating the relations between landlord and
tenant, and the result Was Well described by his noble
friend (the Earl of Donoughmore) when he stated that
his own attempt to improve the condition of his tenantry
had been frustrated by the network of legislation
which Parliament had in its want of wisdom passed.
(Hear, hear.) The difficulty was, he believed, one
of principle. Every attempt to legislate for people hav-
ing the ordinary interests of buyers and sellers would be
infinitely more prejudicial to their real interests than it
would be to leave them free to make whatever agree-
ments they pleased. (Hear.) He appealed to noble lords
who had property in different parts of England whether
many things which applied to the county of Northum-
berland were in the slightest degree applicable to the
county of Dorset or of Sussex ? (Hear.) There were
some species of tenant right, more or less, existing in
every county, and the customary relation which existed
in one part of the country would be totally inapplicable
in another. His noble friend had referred to the question
of contracts. He agreed with his noble and learned
friend (Lord Campbell) that there was a great distinction
to be drawn between contracts and legislation ; and if
ever there was a bill which was a violation of all the
principles on which contracts were founded, the present
bills were of that nature. As the bill stood, the rights of
property were trampled under foot. He believed that
all oases, whether of the sale, lending, or hiring of land,
finally resolved themselves into the commercial principle
of open contracts, and should be dealt with in that way.
He thought it was wrong to lay down any rule as to the
length of leases. Leases of 21 years were common in
England, of 19 years in Scotland ; but his noble friend
laid it down that 31 years leases were best for Ireland.
If these bills were really to become useful measures, it
could only be done by imposing on the noble and learned
members of their lordships' house the duty of assisting
in the improvement of the clauses in committee.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said—My lords, I should
certainly regret if any other course were to be taken with
regard to the bills now before us than that which my
noble friend (Lord Monteagle) proposes. lam sure that
all your lordships join with me in regretting the absence
of my noble friend the Marquis of Clanricarde, not only
because we have not the advantage of his assistance in
this debate, but from the lamentable cause which pre-
vents his attendance this evening. (Hear.) I therefore
wish all these bills to be referred to a select committee,
in order that they may be made the subject of the same
inquiry. I rejoice that my noble friend has expressed
his willingness that they should be so referred, although
I am not quite certain that if I could feel the strong ob-
jections to the principles of the measure which he has
stated I would follow the course which he is now about
to adopt. I concur, undoubtedly, in much that has
fallen from my noble friend as regards the principle of
legislation in connection with the law of landlord and
tenant. I entirely agree with the general principle
which he laid down, that all these contracts relating to
the buying and the letting of land resolve themselves
into the category of ordinary commercial transactions,
and are much better left as far as possible to be decided
between the two- contracting parties. But when my
noble friend draws a picture of a Scotch tenant from the
Lothians going into the county of Mayo or Galway, and
taking land there, and states the impression that he
would be greatly deterred from taking land when you
present him with one of these bills, supposing them to
become law, I must remind my noble friend of the posi-
tion that the tenant is in when he goes to Ireland now.
Does he find his relations with his landlord a simple mat-
ter of contract and bargain between him and the land-
lord from whom he is about to take the land ? By no
means. The principle has been violated for centuries,
and there are on the etatute book at this moment upwards
of 200 statutes legislating for landlord and tenant, all
affecting the question of contract more or less directly,
and infringing that principle which, in the abstract, I
entirely agree with my noble friend is right. I say then
that we are not now in a position to discuss whether
legislation is right, but whether we cannot amend the legis-
lation which already exists. My noble friend objects to
legislation regarding the period of a lease, and thinks it
wrong to lay down as a general rule that the landlord may,
under certain circumstances, give a lease of 31 years to the
tenant. Why the bills of the noble earl (the Earl of
Donoughmore) and the bills which came from the House
of Commons last year are not dealing de novo with this
subject. The law of Ireland regarding leases is in a
most anomalous and ridiculous position—in so absurd a
position that one class of landlords may give leases of
two or three years, and another class of landlords, under
precisely similar circumstances, except that their title is
different, may give leases of a much longer duration. I
think that every species of dignitary in the Church is
now enabled to grant leases of varying durations; and,
in fact, the law of Ireland at this moment is not only in
the most ridiculous but in a most inconvenient and pre-
judicial condition. Now the noble earl opposite has cer-
tainly saved me from the necessity of troubling your
lordships with any lengthened observations on this occa-
sion. I took the liberty of trespassing at some length
on your lordships' attention, on the second reading of
these bills, when they came up from the House of Com-
mons last session, after the most careful deliberation in
that house. I then stated the nature of the bills to the
best of my ability ; but certainly, if I was not sufficiently
sensible of the inadequacy of my explanation on that
occasion, I am more sensible of it now, after the speech
of the noble earl, who has to-night supplied the deficiency
in my explanation ; but as a great portion of his obser-
vations apply to the provisions both of the bills which
he has introduced and of the bills which came up from
the House of Commons last year, and which I have re-
introduced on this occasion, it is quite unnecessary for
me to go over the ground again. The noble earl, how-
ever, must not suppose that because I have introduced
two of these bills in the same form as they came up from
the House of Commons, I therefore consider any
alterations in his bills otherwise than as amend-
ments. I have brought them in as they stand
simply because I considered, under the engagement
into which we entered last session, that that was the
most convenient mode of fulfilling it ; and if we are
ever to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on the subject,
there is an advantage in starting in the committee with
the bills in the same form as the House of Commons,
after a careful deliberation of some months in a select
committee, constituted of representatives of all parties,
without distinction of politics, sent them up to your
lordships. The noble earl instanced a clause in one of
the bills which I introduced that he says he has altered,
viz., a clause giving power to the encumbrancer in pos-
session to grant leases under certain circumstances ; and
I myself think it desirable that that clause should be
omitted ; and if I am able, in committee, I shall cer-
tainly vote against that clatse. There is another clause
which the noble earl proposes to which I cannot so en-
tirely assent. He proposes to introduce ieto his bill a
clause that was omitted by the House of Commons after
very mature consideration, viz., the revival of the power
of distraint over growing crops. I think the other house
came to a right decision in leaving out that clause. The
law in Ireland gave the power of distraint over growing
crops up to the year 1846, but in that year it was re-
pealed by, a bill which I myself introduced into the other
house, being then Secretary for Ireland. My lords, I
believe that if it was right to repeal that measure, it
would be wrong to re-enact it now. I felt at the time