The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-17 00:00:00

This was provided for in the sixth clause, but the '
eleventh clause went further, and was intended to ad-
vance the principle which had- been previously stated ;
for although it was framed so as to secure the
rights of the tenant, it also respected the rights
of the landlord, for it provided that if the tenant
was to be entitled to the value of his im-
provements it was only under the consideration
that they had been made with the consent of the land -
lords. The Hon. Gentleman then ,r•-_,Terred to the
reports which had been made to Parliament -'n the agri-
cultural condition of Ireland, and he proved from them
that the farms are so divided in Ireland, that there is
an utter impossibility of the occupiers achieving in-
dependence, the farms in the county of Cork
not averaging more than fifteen acres, and those
in Tipperary not more than twenty-four acres each.
If they wanted to increase the prosperity and productive •
ness of Ireland, they must adopt the Bill which he had
proposed, because it would enable tenants to derive a fair
profit from the land assigned to them. Besides this, they
should instruct the people in the arts of. agriculture, and
if they did so they would have a happy and prosperous,
instead of a wretched and poverty-stricken people. The
poor of Ireland had been called idle, ignorant, and
brutal ,• but this did not come from their own choice—it
arose from the tenants feeling little interest in the
land which they held—from the nature of the
relations subsisting between them and their landlords;
and if the landlords understood their interest they
would do all in their power to emulate their tenants
to cultivate the soil, and to make it yield all that Pro-
vidence had designed it to yield. He trusted, therefore,
that the Noble Lord at the head of the Government would
consent to the second reading; but, at the same time,
he wished it to be distinctly understood that h.. would
accept and support any measure which had the same
object in view as he had. Certainly, if they wished to
do justice to Ireland, they would lose no time in passing
a law to place the tenants of Ireland in a better
condition than at present. He had made private arrange-
ments with his tenants in accordance with the terms of
the Bill; he simply mentioned this to show that he was
willing to comply with all its provisions—(Hear)—and
he trusted that the example he had set would be followed
by the other landlords of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
It appeared to him that a more important subject than
that of tenant-right could not come before the House.
He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Mr. MONAHAN (the Solicitor-General for Ireland)
rose to oppose the motion. He thought that at this
late period of the session no good could arise from assent-
ing to the motion, because the subject was surrounded
with great difficulties. He hoped, however, that at some
future time the nature of the relations between land-
lords and tenants might come under the review of the
House ; but at the same time he could not avoid stating
that he anticipated that far more good would come from
voluntary and private arrangements between the par-
ties than could be effected in accordance with any Bill
which the Legislature might pass. (Hear, hear.)
Under these circumstances, he should feel it his
duty to move, as an amendment, that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months.
There were objectionable provisions in the Bill, because
a tenant might take an undue advantage of his landlord.
For instance, a tenant for one, two, or tree years might
make improvements which the landlord might be ill able
to pay for, and which the land itself was not in a con-
dition to allow. The arrangement of the amount of
compensation was also open to great objections, and
would involve both parties in great expense, because,
in the cases of arbitration which had come under his
experience, the parties had been involved in considerable
litigation and great expense, and he feared the same
result would occur in this case.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said the principle of the Bill was
exceedingly important—perhaps the most important
measure with respect to Ireland that had come before the
attention of the House this session; but he believed that
at that late period of the session it could not be passed
into a law, still the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ap-
peared to him to have not stated sufficient reasons fur
opposing the Bill. It would be within the recollection
of the House that this was the second measure,
with respect to the rights of tenants which
had come before the House during the present session;
and he did not choose to have the second Bill, which he
believed to have been brought forward from the most
sincere motives, treated in the same way as the Bill of the
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Pusey).
He, therefore, wished to have some pledge from the
Government, if this Bill were withdrawn, that the
subject would receive their early attention in the ensu-
ing session. He trusted that the House would say that
it was better to read this Bill a second time, and con-
sider the objections to it in Committee.
Sir JOHN WALSH said that he dissented altogether
from the opinion expressed by the Hon. Member
who had just addressed the House. He considered that
it would be a dangerous principle for the House to pledge
themselves to the abstract justice of a measure which
could not be carried this session. The Bill contained a
sweeping indictment against the landed proprietary of
Ireland ; and if they believed the assertions that
were made they must arrive at the conclu-
sion, that what were called the rights of the
landlords, were in reality a usurpation. So far
was this from being the case, he asserted that
the facts would show that the landed pro-
prietors of Ireland had made greater saeritk.es
for the prosperity of their tenantry than the land-
lords in this country. Ho denied that the landlords
of Ireland were the cause of what he admitted to be a
great evil in Ireland, namely, the minute subdivision of
the land in that country. The people of Ireland were
obliged to look to the land as the only means of sub-
sistence. There were many prudent farmers in Ireland,
and it was not unusual for them to give portions to their
daughters. The son of a farmer might marry a female who
got one of these portions, and would induce his father
to give him a part of his farm, and there was a subdi-
vision of land, without the knowledge of the landlord,
and with which he could not interfere. In England the
landlord provided buildings for his tenants, but that was
not the case in Ireland, though it was highly desirable
that it should become so. It would have the effect of
benefiting both the landlord and the tenant. The former
would derive great advantage from such a practice, as
it would give him greater security for the improvement
of his land, while the benefit to the tenant was
quite evident. He could not conclude without ex-
pressing his satisfaction that the Government had
postponed a measure of such importance to Ireland
until every information on the subject could be ob-
tained.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said that, if the question before
the House was whether or not they were to consider
of some expedient to improve the relation between
landlord and tenant in Ireland, he would not refuse
his assent to a motion for some legislative enact-
ment by which these relations should be ad-
justed.—(Hear, hear.) A contrary course would be
inconsistent with the opinions which he had already ex-
pressed. It had been stated that it was intended by
Government to bring before the House a Bill on the
subject.—(Hear, hear.) It had been only by that un-
fortunate event which deprived Ireland and the country
of the services of the Earl of Besborough, and the
great pressure of Irish business on the Government,
that they had been obliged reluctantly to give up
the intention of submitting such a measure to the House.
He could not agree with those who said that no measure
on this question could be devised which would produce
beneficial effects. He thought that, looking at the state
of the relation between landlord and tenant in Ireland,
looking to the jealousies that existed between
two classes whose interests were identical, that a
measure might be framed which would meet
the exigencies of the circumstances, and restore
and perpetuate harmony between the landlord and the
tenant. Ile was prepared at all times to enter upon
the consideration of this question with reference
not only to general principles, but also with
respect to the special circumstances of Ireland.
But he submitted that that was not the question before
the House. A Bill had been submitted to the House by
the Hon. Member for Rochdale. He never looked with
prejudice upon any Bill submitted by that Hon. Member,
with all his experience and good-will as an Irish land-
lord—(Hear)—but, after considering this Bill with great
attention, he was prepared to say that though it should
pass the second reading and go into Committee, that the
Government could not, without great modifica-
tion, even save any part of it which they could
advise the House to pass. It would give rise
to great misconstruction in Ireland, and originate
much confusion, and perhaps a little dispute on details
affected by the provisions of the Bill. It vvas not out of
any feeling of opposition to the Hon. Gentleman that he
disapproved the second reading of the Bill, or to the
good objects which it was his intention to effect, for, like
him, he (Mr. Labouchere) did not despair of seeing
ultimately a Bill which would effect these good objects
without exciting the animosity, the lawsuits, and the
disputes which would arise out of the present Bill.
Mr. B. ROCHE considered the question affecting-the
relation between landlord and tenant of such paramount
importance, that he was surprised that the only part
taken by the Government, when the only Member
of the House that had moved upon the subject
had submitted a practical measure upon it, was to throw
impediments in the way. He complained that the far-
mers of Ireland had been deluded by the Government,
who had promised to discuss the relation between land-
lord and tenant upon a substantive measure early this
session, but now, at the end of it, refused to hear or
say anything now that the question was pressed upon
them by another. They were deluded, too, by what had
been called the Irish party- -Irish, he supposed, because
they had promised much and done nothing.—(Laughter.)
That party consisted of the old nobility, the modern
aristocracy, and the gentry of Ireland. They met, and
their promises were great at Dublin, but their perform-
ance nothing at Westminster. They distinguished them-
selves by eloquence on the banks of the Liffey, but they
were silent on the banks of the Thames. So then by
both these parties were the farmers and the
people of Ireland deluded and deceived, not a step
having been taken to redeem their promises to Ireland.
One good result which the rote to-day would have on
Ireland would be, that no matter what they promised
in that House, there was but one hope for them, and
that was a domestic legislature. An Honourable
Member near him wished they had it. He would
give him an opportunity of proving the sincerity of
that wish next session, and he hoped he would
then give him his vote when he brought forward
a motion to repeal the union. The people of Ireland
had been deceived hy the present Government, and no
promises which had been made to them had been kept ;
and it was his honest conviction, as well as that of the
Irish people, that it was to a domestic legislature alone
they had to look for a redress of the grievances under
which Ireland laboured.
Mr. SHAW approved of the course which the Go-
vernment adopted with regard to the Bill.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL thought that the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had exhibited
very great caution with regard to this measure. He
thought, after the principle of compensation was ac-
Imowledged by 411 parties, that her gajesty'se Govern-