The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-11 00:00:00

COMPENSATION TO IRISH TENANTS.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD moved the following
resolution, of which he had given notice :—That it ap-
pears to this House, from the reports of various Co. ,7
mittees and Commissions, that the system generally
adopted in times past in the letting and management of
landed property in Ireland, has been one of the main
causes of the present distressed state of that coun-
try, and the disordered state of its social relations ;
and that no measures can be effectual in producing
a demand for labour, or improving the condition of
the people, which shall not include such an amendment
of the laws of landlord and tenant as shall give to the
improving tenant in occupation a sufficient permanency
of tenure, or else establish the tenant's right to claim
by law full compensation for all benefits created by the
expenditure of his labour and capital on the pre-
mises in his occupation. The question, he said, had
often been asked, what were the causes of the
evils which afflicted Ireland, and who were responsible
for them, that as yet no solution of the matter had been
arrived at, nor did it seem to be understood. He had
therefore been induced to draw the attention of the
House to show how far these evils had resulted
from the relation that had existed between land-
lord and tenant, and to what extent the pro-
prietors of Ireland were responsible for them. If
ever there was a time when inquiry was needed the
present was the moment, when they were voting such
large sums of money for the relief of the people of Ire-
land, and when, he regretted to say, Irish Members were
opposing a poor-law, and throwing off a responsi-
bility to which they were justly subject. It was
with pain that he had seen a resolution, signed
by the name of a leading Irish Peer, declaring itself
opposed to the moderate proposition of the Noble
Lord for the relief of the people of that country, and in
which the measure empowering relieving officers to
grant out door relief under certain circumstances was
reprobated. With such circumstances before them, it was
right that they should inquire into how far the landed
proprietors of Ireland were responsible for the state of
things which prevailed. The first portion of the resolu-
tion he had to submit was as follows :—" That it appears
to this House that from the reports of various Commit-
tees and Commissioners, that the system generally
adopted in times past, in the letting and management
of landed property in Ireland, has been one of the
main causes of the present state of the country."
As he had made this assertion it was his duty to bring
before the House some portion of the evidence on which
he based that assertion, but he would confine his obser-
vations within very narrow limits. The Land
Commission, in their report, referred to thirteen
reports of former committees, after instancing
the large possessions in the hands of a few individuals,
they referred to the penal laws, the forty-shilling free-
hold franchise, and they concluded with the following
observations :—" That whatever difference of opinion
was put forward and maintained on other points,
the testimony of all witnes.es concurred in this, that
the great evils under which Ireland laboured were to ha
traced to the want of proper employment, felt by a large
proportion of the agricultural labourers of that country.
The Committee of 1830, on referring to the multiplie,i
evils of Ireland, said they conceived it was the duty of
individuals, as well as of the Legislature, to consider
what means ought to be taken to diminish this mass of
suffering, and they suggested that by promoting the
better management of estates, and regulating the
arrangements between landlords and tenants, on a
national principle, that good might be effected.
So much for the general condition of the country. He
would now refer to the important evidence of Mr. Lesley
Foster and of Mr. Betchworth, in the year 1823. The
former witness traced a considerable portion of the evils
affecting land to the want of encouragement given to
tenants in building, repairing, or draining ; and the
latter gentleman gave evidence that the landlords of Ire-
land were wanting in the kindness and generosity
which so eminently possessed the English proprietor.
There were strong proofs that the evils of Ireland had
been produced by the misconduct of the Irish landlords.
The first who introduced the middle men were the land-
lords, for they were not introduced by the tenants on the
several properties. And what was the evil con-
sequence of the introduction of these middle men P
Why, another evil of almost equal magnitude
—that of subdivision. Then there was another
evil, that of con-acre. These middle men let houses to
the poor people without any land, and these people were
therefore obliged to take land for the sake of the poor
people, and the consequence of this was the increased
population of the country, the non-drainage of estates,
low wages, which could neither support the men nor
their families, bad houses, and general distress, and
the still further result of a tax on the lands
of England. But there were evil consequences in
another way, for whilst the poor people were starving
they were absolutely sending corn out of the country,
to the extent of two millions and a half of quarters. He
found by the returns that in the first six months of
1846, the exports of corn from Ireland amounted to
1,776,000 quarters, while the imports of the Government
amounted to only 118,000 quarters during the same period.
The gentlemen did not return to the people to give
profitable employment, and the result was that thepro-t
pro-
prietor did not employ the people—the farmers did not
employ the people, and the occupiers did not employbecause
thsoea
people, and the people did not work for themselves bau
they had not the proper remuneration for their labour.
r
There could be no doubt that the want ofts,
tenant with regard to their lands was a f
misery to the people. There were
tw
the south, and another is the north Ireland, between
of o
counties,ceebul it
source
one in
y for the
of
which he would make a comparison
counties of Down and Limerick, and orneefeorfrtehdostoe,
the
e
security for their tenure.
sraall holdings having no
Down, holding from
distressed condition of the people a;osiehn:entirely from the
The number of farmers
one to five acres, was
the same
it was only 7,0 • and
amountedi in Li m numberteo-
-1 '4
,00 ,
oafndfarmins
inL init)eornrienk,
acres in Down
from 5 to 15 acres in extentfarms w
descriptiona
over
v e r l
30000,
Lime-
rick the farms oofo
7,000. The number
Limerick 300, and yet in Limerick
was 15,000, and in
it was more prosperous, as, by the
the 2 ,2,976. Farms
presentment
were
moreamounted tostt
subdivided
iand inow
Down
thanown it
no
Limerick, and yet
there was a proper security to the
custom o
improvement he might make in his lands.
elevate the condition of the people of
way
tenantrjut for
,f,tavheseyby
tile_ox
I..,oyeii tion liar any
The only
4w:woven:flit y :1:•! i.
~S pit2ent
feeling in certain quarters that small lettings should be
dune away with; that no one should be the farmer of