The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-14 00:00:00

the committee believe that this very bill was thrown out
in the Lords through the instrumentality of a member of
the Government ? (Hear.) The real fact was this, and
there was no denying it, that these bills had been sacrificed
by the right hon. baronet the Secretary for Ireland to gain
support in that house, and he, as well as other members
around him, were as much astonished to hear the speech
of the right hon. baronet on Tuesday as they were pained
by it. (Hear.) On Tuesday the right hon. gentleman dis-
tinctly stated that these were not Government hills, though
turning to the language held in the other house by the re-
presentatives of the Government, they found them de-
claring them to be accepted as Government measures.
There was proof in these proceedings, if proof were needed,
that the present coalition Cabinet was without consistency
and without a policy. The hon. and learned gentleman
(Serjeant Shee) might congratulate himself that with the
assistance of the Secretary for Ireland he had succeeded
in defeating two most useful bills, and given an additional
impetus to agitation in Ireland.
Mr. J. FITZGERALD reminded the hen. and learned
gentleman, that the opposition to these bills on Tuesday
came from the Irish members on the other side of the
house, and not from those who were the habitual supporters
of the Government. That imputation of obstructing
progress must refer to the members of the Tenant
League who sat on the Opposition, and not on the
Government side of the house. The bills as they
came from the Lords, though containing much that
was good, would not have been satisfactory, and in-
stead of suppressing agitation would have encouraged
it, and the Government were, therefore, fully justi-
fied in recommending their postponement, especially
as an appeal had been made to them by the hon.
gentlemen who were entitled to be looked upon as repre-
senting Ireland, that now the measure for carrying out the
recommendation of the Devon commission, the Tenants'
Compensation Bill, which was the most important of
them all, was no longer a part of them, not to press them
during the present session.
Mr. LUCAS denied that there had been any obstruc-
tion offered to the measures by the Irish members on the
opposition side. There had been no discussion on them
but once this session, and that was accidental, on a mo-
tion for reporting progress, and in the last session he had
been thanked with others, both by the right hon. and
learned gentleman (Mr. Napier) and by the Solicitor-
General for Ireland, for the facilities they had afforded in
the preparation of the bills. Where then was the obstruc-
tion of which the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland
complained ? The right hon. and learned gentleman (Mr.
Napier) had said that if these measures passed, the poli-
tical capital of those Irish members who opposed them
would be destroyed. He would tell that right hon. and
learned gentleman that they would have no deficiency of
political capital while he continued to display that bigotry
and fanaticism for which he was so distinguished. (Cheers,
and " Oh, oh.") Let the Landlord and Tenant Bill pass
to-morrow, the right hon. gentleman and his friends would
provide employment for the representatives of the Irish
people every week of the session in opposing that bigoted
and unjust aggression with which the religion of the
people was continually assailed. (Oh, and cheers.) The
hon. and learned member for Ennis had said that as no
member of the Tenant League sat on the ministerial
side of the house, the imputation of obstruction must rest
entirely upon those Irish members who sat on the opposi-
tion benches. He would tell that hon. and learned gentle-
man that there was one Irish member who sat on the mi-
nisterial side above the gangway, and who was in the re-
ceipt of salary from the State as one of the law advisers
of the Crown, who for a long period was a member of the
council of the Tenant League—(Cheers from the lower op-
position benches)—whose name was on the back of Mr.
Sharman Crawford's bill, and who in repeated speeches
declared that he would never accept office, so help his God,
under any Government that would not agree to make that
bill a cabinet question, and who, having traded upon that
bill and made political capital out of it, had re-
canted his professions and swallowed his oaths—(more
cheering from the same quarter, and cries of Oh, oh,
and " Question" from other parts of the house)—and who
was at this moment taking the wages of the most extraor-
dinary apostacy. (Oh, cheers, and laughter.) lie thought,
under these circumstances, that it would have been decent
if the right hon. gentleman, Sir J. Young, had refrained
from throwing out imputations which could apply to no
one but his own colleagues. (Oh, and question.) The
pith of this debate, however, apart from the personal mat-
ter, was this. They knew that these bills were now aban-
doned—that all legislation upon the subject for the present
session was at an end. The past they knew—what they
wore now interested in was the future, and though he had
listened attentively in the hope of ascertaining what the
intentions of the Government were in this respect, he had
failed to collect them. (Hear.) They had, he contended,
a right to call upon the Government to declare what their
intentions for the future were. (Hear, hear.) Did they
intend to take up the question in the next session, with
the view of arriving at a final and satisfactory settlement?
(Hear, hear.) Did they mean to bring in the right hon.
and learned gentleman's two bills, and to make a final
settlement of the question of tenants' compensation, upon
the principle which they had themselves sanctioned and
the house had affirmed? (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL had no intention of entering into
the personal question, or attempting to correct the mis-
apprehensions of the hon. gentleman who had just sat
down, by explaining the words ho had imputed most un-
foundedly to his right hon. friend (Sir J. Young)—but
with regard to the question he had put as to the intention
of the Government on this important question, though it
did not require any detailed answer, he thought it deserved
some notice. (Hear, hear.) It had always appeared to him
that this question was one of the utmost difficulty, so far as
devising a satisfactory settlement was concerned—(hear,
hear)—and he could not but refer to the course he had
taken himself, and which he was sorry to find come now to
be almost repeated three years afterwards. His right hon.
friend Sir W. Somerville, when Chief Secretary for Ireland,
was sanguine as to the possibility of arriving at a settlement
of this landlord and tenant question in Ireland, and he in-
troduced a bill for that purpose. The bill was referred
to a select committee who paid great attention to it, and
went through all the clauses with great care, and when it
came out of the committee his right hon. friend fondly
hoped that it might be the means of settling the question,
which had caused so much heart-burning and stood in the
' way of so much of material improvement. But what was
the result ? Large deputations care() over from Ireland
immediately seine of whom he (Lord Johu Russell) saw
himself), and they stated that the remedies proposed were
so complicated in their nature that it would be useless to
them as tenants to endeavour to take advantage of it, and
they requested that the bill might be abandoned. On ex-
amining that bill he could not but see that there was great
justice in their observations ; but he confessed that con-
viction induced a despondency in his mind as to the prac-
ticability of arriving at any satisfactory settlement by
mere legislation. (Hear.) For they were between those
two dangers. If they made the bills simple, they would
depart from the course of justice in imposing upon the
tenants and landlords burdens which they had no right to
intlict—tbey would either interfere with contracts between
the one and the other in a way which they ought not by
legislation to do, and deprive the proprietors of the land
of the power of exercising their legitimate rights as pro-
prietors, or give to the tenant a very insufficient and illu-
sory remedy—and if, on the other hand, they made the
measure exceedingly complicated, they would then, as the
deputations urged, make the process so difficult and so
dilatory that they would not be likely to take advantage of
it. He came, therefore, to the conclusion which he stated
on a previous occasion, that it was useless to endeavour to
fix by legislation the precise mode of a contract which was
only likely to be beneficial if it was carried into effect in
' good faith, confidence, and liberality on the side of both
landlord and tenant. (Hear.) That was to say, if they
proceeded upon the presumption that on the one hand the
landlord would use all the powers which the law gave him
as landlord to oppress the tenant, and on the other that the
tenant would be always endeavouring as much as possible
to cheat his landlord out of his rights ; if they went upon
that supposition they would never arrive at a satisfactory
settlement. Others, however, were more confident. His
right hon. friend who sat near him was exceedingly con-
ga
therueda groat
complaint
gentleman
re-
oinnui agunhl
trouble, which
opposite who had brought for-
wardfideut as to the possibility of snaking a settlement, and the
sanguine,
ins and
deserved
the
ford ar
ws a
veryh e
lI
tookhon. and
highest praise, in framing the measure which he had sub-
mitted to the hours. He (Lord John) confessed when he
hearu the hon. arid learned gentleman's explanation, in-
stead of thinking he did not go far enough he listened to
sumo of the hon. and learned gentleman's proposals with
some of that trepidation which his noble and learned
friend the Lord Chancellor had spoken of, lest he was
approaching too near to those Socialist principles which it
was dangerous to introduce into any act et. Parliament.
(Hear, hear.) Upon the whole, however, he considered
the hon. and learned gentleman's measure a fair one. That
measure was referred to a select committee, and by the
advice of his right hon. friend certain other proposals and
stipulations were adopted as to the relation of landlord
and tenant when the bill went to the House of Lords,
and in reference to that part of the measure which was in-
tended for the benefit of the tenant it gave certain rights
which were not usually given to tenants in this country.
These provisions were strongly objected to by the landed
proprietors in the House of Lords, as well as by the great
law lords—the lights of the house—who were most un-
willing to consent to that part of the bill. This year,
however, that house (the Lords) had passed a bill con-
taining something favourable to those who entertained
the views which were put forwarded by the Irish Tenant
League—not perhaps to the full extent to which those per-
sons would desire to go, and therefore not unnaturally he
thought that when the bill came down to the House of
Commons it excited discontent and dissatisfaction amongst
those who favoured the extreme views propounded in
Ireland on this question. (Hear, hear.) When he spoke
of extreme views ho altogether disavowed the imputation
thrown from either side upon those who entertained
views which might be regarded as even most extreme.
There was one hon. gentleman whose integrity and
honesty of purpose no one could question. He alluded
to Mr. Sharman Crawford, who he saw had lately arrived
is London for some
fate ourpf those,ose bills. The sincerity of
and who expressed great
despondency as to the fa
that gentleman's views on this question no one would for
a moment deny. (Hear, hear.) He dared say, that in
?erY party,
there would be some who lookedonly to their own selfish
advantage Wien
political or religious, of whatever opinions,
disposed to
doubtless there with the
agitation on this e promoting the views of that. party, and
might be some such in connexion
question ; but so far as he knew, he was
give full •
views of the tenant l credit to those who professed the
a bill came down fro
sincerely impressed league party for being honestly and
to be a settlement of luthithe
professed. (Hear.) with the correctness of the views they
en what was more natural, when
House of Lords professing
settlement, that they should ey
contain provisions
hear.) Though he did not
which tisluestic'n
considered essential to a
protest against it ? (Hear,
, and which did not
agree
he he therefore in the extreme
views of those persons
tural or consistent Aan thought nothing was more na-
(Hoar.) If there had been plentyf they
had taken.
,he thought it
very possible that ono of these' obilltairumecht have been
amended and the clauses so altered, that a bill might have
iwlinch might
been sent back to the other house, which would h
toswatairsdfascatiosenttgleenmeernatll, andi •
perhapssome wa y
haveatgiven least Ave gone
The
House of Lords, had there been time toyconusitileeraUtd.m
have rejected or embraced that measure, and thei House
of Commons might have gone on with the considerationuosef
these bills. But it was obvious that at this period of the
seesion—looking at the immense number of clauses, and
the enormous number of amendments to be proposed--
one hon. and learned gentleman having given notice of
no less than 200 —the discussion to which those amend-
ments would necessarily give rise—looking, too, at the
votes in supply yet remaining to be passed, and
the numerous other business before the house, that it
was impossible to proceed with them. He, therefore, had
come to the conclusion, unwillingly, he must say (for he
admitted it would be desirable to pass these bills), that it
was hopeless, unless they had two or three months still

before them to attempt during the present session to come
to a settlement of this important question. (Hear, hear.)
whether hip eight hon. Mead (Fiir J. Young) waa right in

supposing that during six or eight months of deliberation
the whole of these bills, with little alteration, would come
to be generally adopted he could not say. If such a dispo-
sition should appear they might then re-introduce them
next session. He agreed that the bill his right hon. friend
took charge of—the Tenant's Compensation Bill—whether
it was contained in a separate bill or embraced in the clauses
of one of them, was a matter of inferior importance. Either
in the one form or the other, it would Ifa sufficient for its
purpose. Bat he must own, seeing that the question was
still so much a matter of dispute, that there was no dispo-
sition on either side to agree to the bill which was called the
Landlord's and Tenant's Bill he thought it would be almost
useless to attempt to enter into the consideration of its
clauses. (Hear, hear.) There was one thing his noble and
learned friend the Lord Chancellor was reported to have
said, and which had been quoted by the hon. and learned
gentleman, in which he fully agreed, that the best thing
that could be done on this subject—that which, beyond
all question, no one could dispute, and which another
noble friend of his, also a member of the administration,
Lord Lansdowne, had always contended for—was that they
should endeavour to make the law as perfect as possible
with regard to voluntary contracts between landlord and
tenant— (hear)—that the tenant on entering on his tenancy
should know precisely what he was engaged to perform, and
what were his rights and claims ; and that there should be
a simple mode of enforcing the contract without having
recourse to a dilatory and expensive process of litigation.
That was an object practical in itself, and was contained
in the Leasing Powers Bill, which he owned he considered
a most excellent measure. (Hear, hear.) The hon. mem-
ber for Enniskillen had expressed himself very angrily
against the government, and no doubt it was easy to use
hard words on this subject. He (Lord J. Russell) did not
wish to retort or to refer to the history of the government
to which the hon. and learned gentleman had belonged
with respect to this question, and the question raised by
the hon. member far Kilkenny. He did not wish to use
hard words on that subject, and he thought it better not
to make any rejoinder, as he did not desire a matter of
this kind to be made a point of party contest ; but if he
was to refer to the history of past governments, he might
be able to show that one party was as vulnerable as the
other in this respect. The subject was no doubt one of
great difficulty, and he had only one consolation in the
present state of the question, and that was derived from
the statement of the hon. member for Kilkenny. He
(Lord J. Russell) was not in attendance in the house when
the speech of the hon, member was delivered, having been
detained at a meeting of the Privy Council, but he under-
stood that the hon. member stated that one reason why it
was not necessary to come to an immediate settlement of
this question was, that Ireland was now in a better condi-
tion than she had ever been, and that there were no angry
discussions between landlord and tenant, and that those
were reasons why there could be no harm done by post-
poning these bills. That coming from a gentleman who
had been always urging the prompt settlement of the
question, was certainly satisfactory. Ho (Lord J. Russell)
might also mention that he had to-day seen an old
friend of his, a gentleman of large landed property in Ire-
land, and he asked him his opinion on that point, and he
confirmed the statement of the hon. member, saying that
there never was a time when landlords and tenants were
on better terms, and that the state of Ireland was greatly
improved. He might add that he had received a private
letter from the Lord Lieutenant, in which he expressed his
great satisfaction at the state of peace and general good
feeling which prevailed in Ireland. In conclusion, the
noble lord said, let us hope that though the Government
may be subject to taunts on this question, there may come
a time when we shall be able to enter with greater har-
mony and union in the work of legislation, which remains
to be done ; and I do hope that both parties who hold ex-
treme views, those who on the part of tenants go beyond
what is reasonable, and those who are advocates of the
maintenance of the rights of landlords to such an extent as
may be inconsistent with the interests of tenants, will mo-
dify those views, and that at last we may attain, if not to
a perfect code of legislation, to some settlement of the
question.
Mr. MAGUIRE strongly denounced the conduct of the
Government in not dealing with this question, and said
that ha despaired of seeing it settled until it was taken up
in a sincere and resolute manner by Government.
Mr. POLLARD-URQUH ART expressed his regret that
Lord J. Russell had not made some explicit declaration on
the subject of tenants compensation, and urged that al-
though at the present moment there was tranquillity in
Ireland, the tenantry could not bs expected to submit pa-
tiently to be taxed for carrying on a war unless they had
full justice done to them.
Sir A. BROOKE thought that this discussion had proved
the impracticability of legislation on this subject. Al-
though he was opposed to legislation, ho did not wish to
deprive tenants of any of their rights ; but these bills were
an invasion of the rights of property. He hoped gentlemen
connected with the tenant league would abstain from agi-
tation on this subject during the next winter; and if the
people were left to themselves, there would not be a word
said about tenant right.
Mr. POTTER, as a member for a town in Ireland, wished
to say that he viewed this question as one in which all
Ireland was concerned. In the north of Ireland, some
years ago, tenants did lay out a deal of money, but from
the time of the Devon commission there had arisen a feel-
ing of distrust, and they had not been induced to lay out
their money. He knew that there were large sums lying
idle in the banks in Ireland from this cause, and regretted
extremely that the noble lord had held out no hope of the
Government dealing with this subject.
Mr. DISRAELI said he could not allow this converse-

ion to cease without some observations, which he thought
due to his right hon. friend, who was concerned in it. He
observed with regret that there had been some doubt
thrown en the sincerity of his right hon. friend in under-
taking the consideration and the conduct of these bills in
Parliament. He could easily understand that to a gen-
tleman of the high susceptibility and honour like his
right hon. friend, such accusations would be painful and
odious, and he must confess that being perfectly acquainted
with the course or conduct of his right hon. friend, and
knowing that lie was in every respect single-minded on this
question, he should not do his duty if he did not express
his opinion on the present occasion. Long before his right
hon. friend had introduced these subjects to Parliament,
and long before his right hon. friend had occupied the re-
sponsible position which he had recently held, his right
hon. friend had conferred with him confidentially, and he
had expressed his opinion that this was a question which no
public wan who aspired to take part in the affairs of his
country ought to neglect. His right hon. friend had placed
before him the result of the labours of Mr. Fergusson and
the able coadjutor of that gentleman before they were pub-
lished, and therefore he was in a position to speak with
authority with regard to the sentiments of his right
hon. friend on this question. When at a period long after
that accidents brought his right hon. friend and himself
into a position in which their sincerity on thissubject could
be tested, Lis right hon. friend sketched the measure which
he afterwards introduced with so much elaboration and
completeness to the house; and he (Mr. Disraeli) gave his
complete adherence to the just views which his right hon.
friend then indicated. In his opinion the question ought
to have been met in the same spirit in which it had been
introduced by his right hon. friend, and he was prepared
to have supported him in the conduct of these measures.
They have been told to-night that these were measures
which it was impossible to pass through both houses of par-
liament. He was, however, of opinion that these were
measures which, after they had been submitted to the cri-
tical examination of parliament, if they had been taken
up by a sincere and powerful government, might have been
passed, and that in such a manner as to contribute to the
happiness and wellbeing of Ireland, in every class, whether
landlord or tenant. They certainly were bold provisions
contained in the measure of his right hon. and learned
friend, but they were also wise provisions, and guarded
with prudent limitations. He could say as much of the
Tenants Compensation Bill, which was brought forward by
the Chief Secretary for Ireland, because his was a measure
which contained bold provisions, without any restrictions
or prudent limitations. His was a measure, in fact, which
had a communistic tendency, but the measure of his right
hon. and learned friend had an exceedingly good tendency,
and yet this latter was the measure objected to by the no-
ble President of the Council. It was impossible to consider
the peculiar subject under consideration to-night without
taking a large and general view of it, though they could
not enter into the minute details connected with the wise
tenure of land in Ireland, but the noble lord the President
of the Council had told them that the session was too far
advanced for him to take the opinion of parliament on these
two measures. Well, he was perfectly ready to admit that
there was a legitimate reason to offer by any minister on such
an occasion as this, especially by a minister who leads tho
House of Commons, but what said the Chief Secretary for
Ireland? Why, contrary to the noble lord, he told them the
question was of great magnitudo and importance, but it was
brought forward in such a form that on no condition what-
ever would the Government consent to its consideration in
that shape. Now, which were they to believe—the noble
lord, or the right hon, baronet? (Hear, hoar.) Ho agreed
with the noble lord, however, that the session was too far
advanced to make it convenient to enter on the discussion
of one of the most important propositions that was ever
submitted to the consideration of a committee of the House
of Commons, but what had they been doing for the last six
months, that they should now for the first time almost be
called upon to discuss a question which was by no means
new, having years ago been brought under the considera-
tion of Parliament, and having last year been submitted to
the consideration of the House of Lords, by whom it had
been fully investigated through the instrumentality of a
select committee. (Hear, hear.) Surely, considering the
gravity and importance of the subject, and considering also
the length of time it had been before Parliament, it might
have been supposed that the House of Commons this year
having sat six months, that the Government would have
been able to offer some solution of the question. (Hear,
hoar.) What had they bees doing these six months ? He
wanted to know what Ministers had been doing these lad
six months that the house could not have had this ques-
tion thoroughly investigated ? He wanted to know what
Was the catalogue of their legislation ; had the period been
fully employed or deliberately wasted? (Hear, hear.) He
wanted to know, if we were at war, where were the con-
quests we had gained, or, if we were at peace, what bene-
ficial arrangements had been made, or what advantageous
legislation had been accomplished ? (Hear, hear.) Had
Ministers reformed Parliament ? (Hear, hear.) Had they
revised Parliamentary oaths ? (Hear, hear.) Had they
educated the country ? had they even educated Scotland ?
(Hear, hear.) Corruption in certain boroughs they had
touched, but here, as in other instances, they had failed,
and he should have thought that, instead of moving to
report progress, it would have been more satisfactory to
the country, and at all events to the feelings of the minister
who pretended to lead the House of Commons, that some
reason should be given why six months should have elapsed
without their having this question brought under conside-
ration. Report progress on these two bills indeed ! bettor
rath
onerre make a
report the ofmotion
stothat effect ministersot
;t them
ministers. (Laughter.)
some
acdomd
oenfeo rdsnv
rairndg ttohteh el a
stta bs
ilxe
andprogtreelsls
what
mministers
th
o
s
months, and that would be reporting progress far more
to the country than the motion which the
thtoemen
noble lord had made to-night. (Hear, hoar.) The noble
lord had not succeeded yet in dealing with this difficult
question, and what was the prospect which the noble lord
held out of the future legislation of his Government—if it
be a Government—upon this subject? (Hear, hear.) A
few nights ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking
of the conduct of the gentlemen on the opposite side of
the house, who were notiuconsiderable in number or insig-
nificant in the principles they professed as a party, if they
were
a party, and if that was a courteous comment in the
Chancellor of the Exchequer he thought he might fairly
speak of the noble lord and his friends as a Government—
if they were a Government. (Cheers.) But conducting
their debate in
a spirit mutually provisional—(laughter)—
he would ask the noble lord
whether he would answer the
n
_question which an ho already addressed
to him, namely,. gentleman had
what were the intentions of Govern-
it was a difficult Govern-
ment with respect to the tenure of land in Ireland for
the future. (lie hoar.)r'ciueBtioll
tTohedenaol bll‘eitlhor;d
had told
the duty of the Government to deal with difficult ques-
t. %
ion but was tthnoomt
s The noble President of the Council, hoW""3