The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-19 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
The Duke of ARGYLL, in moving that the house go
into committee on this bill, said that great difference of
opinion had existed on this subject, and it had been un-
der the consideration of several successive governments.
Whilst on the one hand, there had been a firm determi-
nation to maintain the great doctrines of property, there
had been on the other hand a sincere disposition not to
sacrifice by any pedantic adherence to principle the claims
of substantial justice. Before the select committee there
had been no less than seven or eight bills, but most of
them were mere duplicates one of the othe several of
them having been before the house last session. Two of
these bills had been brought in by the noble earl oppo-
site, who had paid so much attention to this subject of
landlord and tenant. There had been the Landlord and
Tenant Bill, the Leasing Powers Bill, and a Biil to Con-
solidate the Law of Landlord and Tenant. He would
not go into the details of the bill now before the house,
but would refer to that part whic:, had been most dis-
cussed—the principle of compensation. He adhered to
the great fundamental principle that the arrangements
between landlord and tenant ought to rest on contract
—(hear, hear)—and was not prepared for any serious in-
vasion of that principle_ It was, however, perfectly con-
sistent with this principle that there should be a legal
enactment to operate where there was no agreement, or
where the agreement was silent. The law now was that
where a tenant erected buildings they belonged to the
proprietor of the soil, and until a very recent period it
was not even contemplated for a landlord by agreement
to overrule that rule of law, but in 1851 there was an act
passed that made a very material alteration. That act
extended to England and Ireland, and under it, in the
event of a tenant building upon his farm, the building be-
came his property, and he could carry away the materials.
The principle of the present Landlord and Tenant Bill
was simply the re-enactment of that law of 1851, that
when a tenant erected at his own expense, he might re-
move the property from the farm, if the building had
been erected with the landlord's permission. It could
not be denied that there was a very rapid change going
on in Ireland in relation to the subject of landlord and
tenant, and it could not be denied that there was
great difficulty in dealing with this subject. He
would not for a moment recommend their lordships to
adopt any bill to pacify any agitation whatever. During
the period of change, to which he had referred, many
tenants had built buildings on their farms, and these
buildings might be taken by the landlord under the pre-
sent law without any compensation. He thought it was
their duty to ease this period of change, and under this
principle the bill hest been drawn up with a certain re-
trospective action by extending the principle of the ex-
isting law, that where a tenant has erected at his own
expense, the premises should remain his property, and
might be removed. There were, however, several limi-
tations to this. The buildings must have been erected
at the tenant's sole expense, and where the tenant had
had a long lease, and had been to some extent compen-
sated by occupation for a length of time, that must be
taken into consideration. As the clause originally stood,
it was contemplated that a certain period of enjoyment
by the tenant should exhaust his interest, and although
t was true the terms were not fixed, yet the judge before
whom the case should be heard would consider whether
the tenant had been compensated, without any time
being fixed, when the interest of the tenant should ex-
pire entirely. The matter, however, had been very
much modified, and he would shortly state the principle
upon which the retrospective clause was now framed.
There was a kind of claim of the tenant, which
I was absolutely barred, and others where it was limited.
The cases where the claims of the tenant were absolutely
barred were these. First of all, if he had erected, in
pursuance of an agreement, then he was not to be com-
pensated, or where the tenant had been compensated by
abatement or allowance of rent. Where the premises
had not been erected in violation of any covenant, and
where there had not been enjoyment beyond a certain
time, there wool .1 be compensation. A change had been
made in committee as to the period of time that should
exhaust all claim, which had stood at 21 years, but the
principle remained that, after a certain period of enj,,y-
merit, all claim should fail, The last of the causes which
limited the amount of claim, but did not bar it, were
these. First of all, where the period of enjoyment,
though not fully expired, had run to some length, for
instance, 19 years, that should be considered, and in
that case the interest would be nearly exhausted ;
and, lastly, there was a provision as to build-
ing, and these firmed the general princi?les upon
which the law had been drawn. After the Lan

lord and Tenant Bill had been settled by the corn

rnittee, they came to the consideration of the Ten-
ants' Compensation Bill. In that there were retrospec-
tive clauses, but the committee having adopted one
principle in the bill which they had settled could not go
on to adopt another in the second bill. Tue Tenants
Compensation Bill, in the first instance, included im-
provements in the soil as well as upon it ; but, as it
came to the house, improvements in the soil were ex-
cluded. Provision having already been made for build
ings by the committee in the bill which they had passed,
there was nothing left for the Tenants Compensation
Bill but the subject of roads and fences. This, it was
thought, was not a matter requiring a separate bill, and
thus the committee had reported in favour of the Land-
lord and Tenant and the Leasing Powers Bill, but against
the third bill. The noble duke concluded by moving
that the house resolve itself into a committee.
The house then went into committee.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said his objections
to the two measures had neither been removed nor dimi-
nished by the changes which had been made in them by
the select committee. He objected to the principle upon
which they were founded, because it violated every lease,
contract, or agreement now in force between the land-
lords and tenants of Ireland. He should not, however,

move their rejection ; but he trusted that if they came
back from the other house with amendments, sufficient
time would be given for the consideration of those amend-
ments by their lordships. _ _

The Earl of WICKLOW vindicated the bills, and
said they were substantially the same which the Govern-

went to which the noble marquis himself belonged in
tended to have proposed.

Lord ST. LEONARDS said the Law of Landlord
and Tenant Bill was calculated to be a very useful mea-
sure. It was the result of a compromise, which was
absolutely necessary, if the question was to be settled.
He disapproved, however, of nine-tenths of the Leasing.
Powers Bill ; and amidst some applause, said there ought
to be no difference, in the law relating to real property,
between England and Ireland.
Lord CAMPBELL and Lord BEA.IIMONT having stated
objections to the Landlord and Tenant Bill,
The LORD CHANCELLOR pointed out the irregu-
larity of discussing the principle of the two bias in coin-
mittee.

After some observations front the Earls of CLANCARTY
and DESART, the consideration of the clauses was pro-
ceeded with.

All the clauses were agreed to without any mated:*
amendment.

The Leasing Powers Bill also passed through corn
mittee.

------
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--(YESTERDAY.)
OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
Mr. BLA.CKETT asked the noble lord the member for
the city of London, when it was proposed to resume the
committee on this bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not fix the day until the
finance resolutions had been disposed of.
MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL ESTABLISH-
MENTS.
On the question for resuming the adjourned debate on
this bill.
Mr. NEWDEGATE observed that, on account of the
factious opposition of certain gentlemen, it would be im-
possible for his hon. friend the member for Hertford satis-
factorily to prosecute his propose inquiry ; he, therefore,
advised him to change his mode of procedure, and not to
press further the nomination of the committee. He sug-
gested that his hon. friend should embody his views in a
bill, as there would be then scone chance of limiting the
the debate to the subject propose" to he dealt with, other-
wise there would be nothing but a succession of discursive
debates and Irish rows.
Mr. BRIGHT to .k the hon. member for Warwichshire
severely to task for his strictures upon the conduct of the
Roman Catholic party with' regard to this question The
Ministry were acting in concert with the whole Roman
Catholic population of these countries, and in so acting
they had a right to avail themselves of all the forms of the
house to prevent one Church from insulting and outraging
another. The hon. member for Hertford hed introduced
a bill last session lip )n this very subject ; he was not able
to carry it because the house felt that no case had been
made out for it. It was then thought that a committee,
groping in every channel and every sewer, would find ma-
terials on which to base legislation ; but surely the hon.
member, having once given up his bill because there was
no case for it, and having a committee in order Vest he
might get up a case, and having failed in his attempt to
get a committee, would not be allowed to go back and bring
in a bill for which he hail no grounds last session.
Mr. COLLIER observed that the reason why the mino-
rity hail overruled the majority on this question was be-
cause the former was supported by the sympathy of a large
portion of the Protestant members of that house, as well
as by a powerful party outside, and he trusted that they
had heard for the last time of a question which ought never
to have been brought under the consideration of Parlia-
ment.
Mr. FREWEN called the attention of the house to the
violent language made use of by a Mr. Wharton at the late
Catholic meeting held in London. The speaker threatened,
if Prince Albert persevered in insulting the Catholics, to
appeal for help to the Emperor of the French.
Mr. T. CHAMBERS then rose to withdraw his motion.
He observed that he consented not to press for the appoint-
ment of this committee, because the position in which the
question was now placed was such, that it would be lite-
rally and physically impossible for him to succeed in get-
ting it nominated. It was not his intention, however, to
abandon the question; and he wished it clearly to be un-
derstood that it was open for him to follow whatever course
he might judge most expedient.
Lord J. RUSSELL having shortly reviewed the circum-
stances under which the question stood, expressed his gra-
tification that the hon. member for Hertford had with-
drawn his motion, as, in the first place, no case had been
made out for it ; and in the'second, because he thought it
would have stirred up much religious bitterness, and much
hatred and (discord between Roman Catholics and Pro-
testants, without any advantage or benefit whatsoever to
the country. He did not perceive that any danger could
arise to the country from the establishment of monasteries
and convents, and therefore he was neither ready to con-
sent to the appointment of the committee, nor to agree to
the introduction of the bill. lie believed that no legisla-
tion on this subject was required.
After a few words from Sir J. PAgINGTON,
Mr. H. DRUMMOND gave notice that he would put
upon the notice paper a motion for an address to the Crown
to inquire into the conventual estah ishmente. The Pope,
who was the aggressor, had not ceased operations. He said,
" Have this realm of England I will, and by every convent
established he made a little enclosure from the Crown of