The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-12 00:00:00

MONEY TO IRISH RAILWAYS.

Colonel OSBORNE desired to know what sum of
money had been granted for the earthworks of the
Limerick and Waterford Railway ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he oould not answer the 'question off hand.
PRESENTMENTS IN IRELAND.

Sir H. BARRON wished to know why the Board of.
Works had delayed to send down drainage surveyors to
carry into operation the sums of money which had been
advanced under the Act commonly called Mr. Dtbou-
chere's Act. He hoped that his Eight Hon. Friend
would explain to the House why the delay had taken
place.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said, that unless he had the re-
port of the Board of Works ho could not give a distinct
answer. The Board of Works had been obliged to
delay longer than they could have wished the examina-
tions necessary to the presentments before the money
could be advanced to carry them out, as, in many in-
stances, there had been a difficulty in finding competent
surveyors to undertake the works. The Board of Works
itself was most anxious to facilitate the works.
Mr. W. COLLETT wished to press the question
already asked by an Hon. Member. He wished to know
whether any advance had been made to the Limerick
and Waterford Railway?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that in order to answer the Hon. Gentleman it was ne-
cessary that he should read the Treasury Minute which
had sanctioned the advance.—(Hear.) The Minute
stated that the Commissioners of the Public Works
had, with regard to a portion of the line for which
the authority of Parliament had bean obtained, advanced
sums of money for the execution of the earth-works ;
and with regard to that portion of the line for which the
authority of Parliament had not been obtained, and of
which it. was intended to alter the course as soon as the
consent of all the landholders should have been obtained,
the money necessary for the earth-works would be
advanced.
COMPENSATION TO IRISH TENANTS.
_ _

Mr. SHARMA'S CRA.WFORD moved the following
resolution, of which he had given notice :—That it ap-
pears to this House, from the reports of various Com-
mittees and Commissions, that the system generally
adopted in times past in the letting and management of
landed property iu 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 conoition 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 createl 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 hie
evils which afflicted Ireland, and who :ere responsibli,
for them, that as yet no solution of the matter had been
arrived at, nor did it seem to be understood. He hat
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 fur them. It'
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, lie 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 fur 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 anti 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 opinionts
was put forward and maintained on other
spoi
the testimony of all witnesses concurred in this, thate'to be
the great evils under which Ireland laboured
lt w
traced to the want of proper employment, f
that country.
proportion of the agricultural labourers of
multiplied
• to the
The Committee of 1830, on referring by era
large
evils of Ireland, said they conceived it was
to consider
individuals, as well as of the Legislature,
this mass of
what moans ought to be taken to
diminish the duty 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 of the country. He might be effected.
So much for the general condition
would now refer to the important evidence of Mr. Lesley
Foster and of Mr. Betchworth, in the year 1825. The
former witness traced a considerable portion of the evils
the want of encouragement given to
affecting land to
•no. or draining ; and the
repairing tenants in building,
d e that the landlords of Ire-
land were wanting latter gentleman gave evidence
in the kindness and generosity
which so eminently possessed the English proprietor.
that the evils They© were strong proofs of Ireland had
the aIISe3M.LICt Or the .1%
been produced by
The first who introduced the middle
men were the land-
lords, fvr they were not introduced by the tenants cal the

several properties. And what was the evil con-
sequence of the introduction of these middle men ?
Why, another evil of almost equal magnitule
—that of subdivision. Then there was another
evil, that of con-acre. These middle men let houses to
the poor people without any laud, and these peope were
therefore obliged to take land for the sake of the poor
people, and the coirequence 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 tr►x on the lands

of England. But there were evil consequencesll;
another way, for whilst the poor people were starving
they were absolutely sending corn out of the country,
to the extent of te o millions and a half of quarters. Ile
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 the pro-
prietor did not employ the people—the farmers did not
employ the people, and the occupiers did not employ the
people, and the people did not work for themselves because
they had not the proper remuneration for their labour.
There could be no doubt that the want of security for the
tenant with regard to their lands was a feeble source of
misery to the people. There were two counties, one in
the south, and another in the north of Ireland, between
which he would make a comparison—he referred to the
counties of Down and Limerick, and in one of those, the
distressed condition of the people arose entirely from the
small holdings having no security for their tenure
The number of farmers in Down, holding from
one to five acres, was 14,000, and in Limerick
it was only 7,000. The number of farms in Down,
from 5 to 15 acres in extent was 11,000,. and in Lime-
rick the farms of the same description amounted to
7,000. The number ef farms over 30 acres in Down
was 15,000, and in Limerick 300, and yet in Limerick
the presentment amounted to 186,000, and in Down to
2.976. Farms were more suodivided in Down than in
Limerick, and yet it was more prosperous, as, by the
custom of the country there was a proper security to the
tenant for any improvement he might make in his lands.
The only way to elevate the condition of the people of
Ireland, was by securing them a compensation for any
improvement they might make. There was a prevalent
feeling in certain quarters that small lettings should be
done away with; that no one should be the farmer of
lurid unless he had held the plough. But how
could they ever expect the labourers to rise unless
there were different sizes of farms. In the county of
Down the benefit of small lettings had proved to be
most beneficial. The tenant right for which he con-
tended was such, that the holder of- land was not re
quired to give up possession without receiving from the
proprietor the value of the improvements he had
made. He could also sell the improvements to
any tenant that might follow. What would
England and Scotland do in the harvest season,
if it were not for the Irish labourer? He was no
advocate for small holdings as they existed in some parts
of Ireland. He was no admirer of cotter tenants
but he did maintain that a considerable degree of the
prosperity of the north of Ireland depended on the
division of land into small but reasonably-sized farms.
—(Hear,) With reference to the system of mid-
dlemen, he held that it was one which destroyed all
confidence between the landlord and tenant, which
repressed all improvement, and was a fruitful cause of
the miseries of Ireland. No security was given by the
middleman to the tenant, and he could not claim one
from the landlord as the middleman stood between them.
Unless they passed a law for the i,provement of land-
lord and tenant, it would be of little use to pass a law
for the reliet of the destitute poor of that coutdry; and
unless there was such a law passed, it would he
utterly useless to do anything else, and there Mould
be an end to all improvement, and an entire loss
of all the labour and the expense which had
been incurred. Ile did say that there was a greater
evil than that of the absentee landlerds, for he
could say, from his personal knowledge, that
the properties of • many of the absentee landlords
were in a far better condition than those of the resident
landlords. The people were better housed, better fed,
and in a better condition on those estates. It was safe
ny the Irish landlords, that if the rates were levied that.
they would never be paid, but, if the poor people we-re
unable to pay the rates, why did not the landlords pay
the rates themselves. If they did so, then would they ob-
ain the good-will of the people of this country, and would
be held worthy of the money which had been contributed,
and the assistance which had le en rendered by this
country. He did not wish to say one word that would
De (Alen .ive to the Irish landlords, but in the course of
bringing this sub' ect before the House, he challenged them
to throw off the responsibility- which their positior imposed
He was thankful to the House for the indulgence which
it had shown to him. He, trusted that the landed
proprietors would not shrink from their responsibility.
He hoped that the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government would give him K pledge that some
amendment of the law of landlord and tenant would be
effected.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped that he would teii
him that such a measure was one of those which he
intended to introduce.

Sir I). NORREYS said that unless it could be made
the interest of the landlords to give security to their
tenants, it would be wholly useless to expect WIN' move •
ment on their part to effect what was to much -desired.
In order to induce the landlords to give leases
he would take away the stamp duties, and he
thought also that it was absolutely necessary that
all local taxation should be thrown upon
the landlords, where there were not leases for at
least twenty or thirty years. On this subject, he did
think it would be of some interest to the House to
give its attention to the opinion of a foreign r, whu had
probably observed Irellind, and had written better on
Ireland than Tiny other person, and who probably knew
the condition of Ireland better. He referred to Mr.
De Beaumont, I, his thought the uncertainty of tenure
in Ireland was the mainspring of most of the evils that
afflicted it.—(llear, hear.)
Mr. TUITE then addle ssed the House, but was for
some time ineudible, from the confusion which prevailed.
He was firmly persuaded that no benefit would accrue to
Ireland till they had generally a resident, instead of an
absentee, proprietary. He altogether denied the asser-
tion which had been made by some Hon. Members in
that House, that the property of absentees was as well
managed as the estates of the resident gentry. From
experience he knew this was not the case.
Lord CASTLEREAGH wished to call the attention
of the House very shortly to the observations of the
Honourable Member for Rochdale. He gave credit
ro the Honourable Member for the best inten-
tions, but he might be permitted to say
that the improvements in the county to which
he had the honour to belong were increasing, while
the tenantry experienced a freedom frum distress
which was gratifying to those interested in what
—in the welfare of the country. He would
beg to say, in one word, why he could
not support the resolution of the Hon. Member for
Rochdale. Hon. Gentlemen in that House were tee
much accustomed to look on Ireland as they
would upon a county, and to entertain the
opinion that whatever measure would suit that county
would be equally suitable for the whole of Ireland.
Hun. Gentlemen were nor perliep, aware that the systems
of agriculture sere widely different iu different
parts of the country. Were the measure o the
Honourable Member fcr R. chdele, tf eretore, ear-
ned in that House, it would involve the greatest,
mischief to the landed property in that courtiry. lip
trusted that without a legislative enactment
improvements, which were going on in the
north, would extend into the south, aid that the relations
between the proprietors of the soil and the tenants would
be carried out in a spirit of liberalty.
Colonel CONNOLLY objected to the resolution of the
lion. Member, because, while it did not carry the force of law,
it was sufficiently important to disturb existing interests and
arra .gernents. He relieved that in the part of the country
with which the last speaker was connected the system was
carried out by his Noble Father of recognising tenant rights
by making allowances to those tenants who had made any im-
provements. Now at the present moment the landlords and
tenants were on the best understanding with each other, and
he thought, therefore, that it would be bad policy to interpose
a law to unsettle that understanding. The Hon. &lemurr
seemed to think that it would tend to propel the
improvement of Ireland; but he (Colonel Connolly)
believed that it would have a very different consequence
in that country, and for that reason he should oppose the
resolutions, and he trusted that the House would de-
cide that no general resolution would produce a good effect.
Mr. LABOUCHERE would detain the House but a very
few moments, and he trusted that if he decided to oppose the
acceptance of the resolutions, the Hon. Member for Rochdale
(Mr. S. Crawford) would not consider that he acted from any
disrespect. He quite acknowledged that the subject was one
well- worthy of the attention of the Howe, and that he had
exhibited a great knowledge of the question in the way in which
he had submitted his views to the House. He did not know
what had induced the Hon. Member to deviate from the course
which he had formerly adopted. Had he adopted this course,
and had moved for leave to bring in a Bill, he was prepared to
say, on the part of the Government, thatheasmhoeuld have evinced
a,ure
. He did
no objection to the introduction of such
see the reason why the same course had not been adopted now
as on former occasions, but hec
ruelsdolnuottiohnesl pfosrubspeeccotmininggtthhaet
the Hon. Member intended these
basis of a law.
g d with the Hon. Member for Donegal
( Col. Connolly)
general resolutions were passed on H
thea at -
ree
par-
ticular emergencies; but in the present state of Ireland
resolutions such as these were particularly injudicious.
The Hon. Member had put two alternatives. Ht
ofHtwo
said with
respect to Ireland, that the House could k
They could either
give a permanency of tenure of the land he
held to the tenant, or they could give him compensation for
the improvement which he had effected upon his holding. Now
heMr. Labouchere) thought that it was at all times inadvi-
sable to put two courses before the House, and he must say
that the terms in which these resolutions were expressed, were
in the extreme vague and indefinite. To give permanency of
tenure to the tenant would altogether change the principles of
the law of property ; but to the principle of compensation to
the tenant, he conceived the House was, though not in fact,
already committed. He thought that he should do wrong to
anticipate the discussion which would take place when the
'measures were to be introduced. It they interfered,
they should adopt the principle of interference with
caution and due deliberation, mid they should take especial care
that they shonld not shake the rights of property, which he
held to be the corner-stone, in every. civilised part of the
world, of civilisation and prosperity. But it might be right to
interfere in such a manner as would place the tenant in a se-
curer and more satisfactory situation. He agreed with his
Hen. Friend that if he would be able to accomplish
such an object, he would confer a lasting benefit upon the
country, and tend to her presenf and future benefit. Such a
measure, conferring such advantages, would be a suitable ac-
companiment of those which her Majesty's Government
thought proper to introduce. Holding these views, he did not
think it necessary to trouble the House with any further re-
marks. When the subject would be brought forward by the
Government, he would then have an opportunity of stating his
opinions.
Mr. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH said that the tenant right
was a most unfair and mischievous practice, unfair to the
lord and unfair to the tenant him=eft ; teeming tenzto-
to pay more than twenty years' purchase for the right of pose
bunion from year to year. to foot, he had to pay a sum which

ought to obtain him the fee-simple of the land, The conse-
quence was, that he came there a pauper without capital to in-
vest in its cultivation.

Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN wished to know when the Go-
vernment proposed to introduce any Bill on the subjc.ct re-
ferred to in the resolutions proposed by the Hon. Member for
Rochdale. The Bill was much called for, and it would lus
better, perhaps, if the Government would name some particu-
lar period.
Mr. LA BOUCHERE—It depends upon the progress made
with the other measures before the House. He hoped to be
enabled to introduce the measure before Easter.
Mr. S. CRAW) ORD said that the reason he brought for-
ward the resolution was, that at the close of last session the
Noble Lord said that a Bill would be prepared by Government
early this session on the subect. He was disappointed in that
expectation, as the Bill was not brought forward among the
other measures proposed by Government. He did not wish to
take the matter out of the hands of Government, but now, on
withdrawing the resolution, he should give notice that at some
future period he should ask for leave to bring in a Bill on the
subject.

The resolutions were then witly:rawn. .
COMMONS INCLOSURE ACT.

Mr. AGLIONBY moved for leave to bring in a Bill far-
ther to amend " the Acts to facilitate the Inclosure and Im-
provement of Commons," by providing that all waste or
common lands, allotted by virtue of those Acts, shall be held
as freehold, and shall be allotted as such, without reference to
the tenure of the ancient lands in respect of which such allot-
ments shall be made. He would only occupy the House a few
minutes while he explained the objects of the bill, to the in-
troduction of which he trusted there would be no opposition.
Its object was to amend the 94th section of the Commons In-
closure Act of last session, in order to facilitate tha inaprove•
menta of lands. The object of the Act of last yea was to
enable inclosures of commons to be made for the expe.nse oI
25!. or 301., which formerly cost from 6001. to 7001-
The clause he referred to interfered materially with
the operation of the Act, as it enacted that
in no case shall any land, enclosed under the Act, be let ca
any tenure but that of the old allotments. Under the system
that prevailed in the neighbourhood where he resided, the en-
closed allotments were made freehold instead of copyhold, and
he wished the same provision to be enacted in the present Act.
He would now moved for leave to bring in the
The motion was agreed to.
IRISH POOR-RATES.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD moved for leave to bring in a Bill
for better receiving the payment of Irish Poor-rates. He
proposed by this Bill that the landlords rate should be levied
separately from that of the tenant. And the same power to
enforce ;payment as the 6th and 7th Vic., gave for enforcing
payment of tenahts' rates. In the. case of non-resident land.-
holders, he proposed, should the rates not be paid, that the
Court of Chancery or Exchequer should have power to appoint
a receiver. and enforce payment in that way.
The motion was seconded by Mr. WILLIAMS, and leave
was given to bring in the Bill.