The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-16 00:00:00

TOE! SUN, LONDON.

the powers of the assistant-barristers, the details of
which would be found in the Bill. The measure pro-
vided afro that tenants-at-will might be ejected upon
non-payment of their rent. This clause would be bene-
ficial alike to landlord and tenant, and it would not give
the former any advantage which he did not already pos-
sess. lie believed that if the landlord had such a power
j. the system of holding polices to quit, in terrorern, over
the heads of tenants, would be no longer resorted to, and
a great source of irritation would thus be done away
with. It was proposed to couple that power of ejection
with a provision that on parol demise no rent
should be recovered which was of more than two years'
standing;.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR ask; d the precise meaning of the
words parol demise?
Sir W. SOMERVILLE—Where there was no lease;
and the Bill also provided that every receipt given for
rent should specify each particular gale for which it was
paid, or else that such receipt should be taken as good
fur the last gale due.—(Hear, hear.) Ile had now gone
through the chief details of the proposed Bill, and in
answer to the objections of those who urged the im-
propriety of interposing a legislative interference be-
tween man and min in their private transactions, he
would reply, "Look at the state of Ireland, her undeve-
loped resources, her neglected agriculture;" and then he
thought it would be admitted by all that the time was
come when legislation ought to prevail, if ever it was
to do so. For himself, he could only say that,
provided justice was done to the landlord, the more
generously the House legislated for the tenantry of
Ireland, the greater would be the benefit conferred on
that country.—(Hear, hear.) The question was not a
party one. There was, he felt certain, no gentleman
present who would not willingly help to frame a measure
which should put an end to the existing state of affairs
between landlord and /tenant in Ireland. The public
mind there was now becoming fully alive to the im-
portance of agricultural improvement. It was out of
his immediate province to advert to the great and
striking success which had attended the Lord
Lieutenant's exertions to diseminate information on this
subject by means of agricultural lectures. but he could
not help stating that the results of that happy movement
had &ready far exceeded Lord ClarenJon's most
sanguine expectations. All parties had assisted these
gentlemen, and none more actively—and he was grateful
for it—than the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. li
(Hear, hear.) It was, therefore, evident that never was
there a more auspicious time for commencing the
agricultural improvement of the country:4 He hoped
that the Bill he was about to introduce would tend to
that result, by inducing tenants to sink their capital in
the land, and, if it did so, he should feel most happy at
having in any way contributed to its success.
Mr. S. CRA WFORD feared that the Bill introduced by
by the Right lion. Baronet would only have the effect of
producing general disappointment in the country it was
intended to serve. The tenantry of Ulster would hear
with dismay that the right which they were accustomed
to call tenant right was about to be thrown overboard.
As this species of right had been much spoken of, he
should endeavour to define it ; and he could not do so
better than by reading a petition which had been pre-
sented in the previous year from Derry on the subject.
The Hon. Member then read the petition, which, after
some abstract propositions relative to the sacredness of
the right of labour, defined tenant-right to be the right
which every out-going tenant had to compensation for
all improvements he might have effected in his farm
during occupancy, and a power freely to dispose of such
right to the highest bidder. The Bill was to have
no retrospective action in the case of tenancies of
less than 101. annually, but this would be a small
boon to the Ulster farmers who generally held large
farms. To show the hardships attendant on the non-
recognition of tenant-right, he would mention
one case which had come within his own knowledge.
A man had taken a hundred acres of poor land on a
lease for 31 years, at 10s. per acre. His capital on en-
tering was 800/., all of which he spent on the land, to-
gether with another 8001 of profits, which his improve-
ments enabled him to realise, for a house and offices. At
the expiration of his lease he offered 255. per acre for a
renewal, but his landlord refused, alleging that the
profits bad returned the original capital invested, and
that the house the tenant had built was too good for the
land. Now, bow did the case stand as to the value of
this land? At the commencement of the tenant's occu-
pancy it was worth 10s. per acre, which would give
1,5001. as the value of the fee, but at the termination it
was worth 255., which would raise the fee to 3,6001., all
of which was seized by the landlord. He asked whether
this was not downright robbery ?—(llear, hear.) The
Bill before the House would not provide for such a
case as that, seeing that by it every claim of the tenant
on his land terminated with his lease of 21 years. It
might be said that this Bill did not' interfere with tenant
right. In his opinion it virtually abrogated it, for it
would be used as a pretence by the landlord for inter-
fering with what was merely an old custom. In his
opinion tenant right was the only legislation, not
only for Ireland, but for the whole of the United
Kingdom, an although some might call it
interference with the rights of property, still there were
times when the public interest called upon:the State to
interfere. What was the origin of all the evils under
which the people of Ireland were suffering? Why, want
of employment.—(Hear, hear.) Provisions were neither
scarce nor dear, but the people had no money, nor could
they get any without employment, and employment
would not spring up unless the employer had full security
for the investment of his capital.—(Hear, hear.) lie
gave full credit to the Lord-Lieutenant for good inten-
tions in sending out the lecturers; but their instructions,
however excellent in themselves, would effect little with-
out some improvement in legislation with regard to land.
What was wanted was security for the tenant, and the
want of that security had created all the recent disturb-
ances in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) There were six counties
in Ulster called the Plantation, which were originally
granted to the undertakers on the condition that they
should let the laud at reasonable rents and on cer-
tain tenure. This provision in time was evaded, and
he believed ' that the present tenant-right was the
substitute. For this reason the Ulster farmers had a
peculiar claim on the Legislature for protection and con-
firmation in their rights. He did not wish to be misun-
derstood in his claim for tenant-right. He did not
claim on tke score of mere occupancy although he was
aware that such a definition had been given to tenant.
right. His claim was only for cases in which money and
labour had been spent in really improving the land and
increasing its value. Ho was aware that claims had
often been set up for compensation to the tenant where
the landlord had actually a claim for depreciation ; but
this all arose from the want of proper security ter the
rights of labour. He confidently believed that if
tenant-right were once established, in two years the
spirit of improvement would spread from one end of
Ireland to the other. He believed that the present
Bill had been brought forward with the best intentions,
but unless greatly improved, he feared it would fail of
its desired object.
Mr. HERBERT said that the Hon. Member for
Rochdale had spoken of tenant-right as a matter not
generally understood. He quite concurred with the
Honourable Member, seeing that so few of its advocates
understood it themselves.,-(Hear.) At a meeting held
lately in Ireland on the subject hardly any two of the
gentlemen present agreed in their definition of tenant-
right. The Honourable Member for Rochdale repudi-
ated any claim for occupancy, while he (Mr. Herbert)
held in his hand a resolution passed at a late meeting in
Tipperary, in which tenant right was defined to be
"occupancy, including improvements." The same defi-
nition bad been adopted in the Irish Council, where ono
Gentleman looked upon it as a transfer of the land from
the owner to the occupier.—(Hear, hear.) It had been
said that all legislation should be simple, and certainly
nothing could be more simple than this. If you adopted
the principle of transferring one man's property to
another, you would simplify legislation exceedingly.—
(Hear, and laughter.) He believed that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would find finance a very simple study
if all he had to do in making up his budget was to ap-
propriate as much as he might require of the property
of her Majesty's subject for the public expenses.—
But he (Mr Herbert) believed that that House
would never sanction such a transfer.—(Hear, hear.)
He denied that the sale of tenant-right was any criterion
as to its value, for there was no Member of that House
who was not aware that in consequence of the intense
competition for land in Ireland any sum, however ridi-
culous, would be promised for its possession. Largo
sums might, it was true, have been paid for tenant-right;;
but how? By the entering tenant borrowing money,
and thereby impoverishing himself.---(Hear.) Having
read an extract from the report of the Devon Cometis-
sion to show that in-coming tenants often exhau.sted
their capital in paying for tenant-right, and :mother to
show that outgoing tenants often claimed for tenant-
right when in justice they should be sued for deprecia-
tions, the Hon. Member said that he did not want to in-
fere with the tenant-right of Ulster, but he protested
against its introduction into Munster, where, he believed,
it would prove, not only prejudicial to the landlord, but
destructive to the tenant. He could not understand bow
taking from a man his capital on going into a farm
would assist him in its cultivation or in making im-
provements.—(Hear, hear.) There was one place in
Kerry, called the Commons of Ardfert, where the fruits
of tenant-right were exemplified. There the occupiers
had subdivided the land among themselves, arid, at this
moment, they were in the most wretched esondition pos-
sible to imagine. He must strongly protest against the
scheme of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, which could
only have the effect of raising extraordinary expecta-
tions, and thus marring the efforts of those who were
anxious to promote the just righics of the tenants of
Ireland.

-Mr. FAGAN said that the groat question was how
the cultivation of the land was to be promoted, and it
was only'to be done by the !greatest encouragement and
protection. He did not think that the [lon. Member
who had just sat down had treated the Hon. Member
for Rotschild—(Great laughter)—he meant Rochdale,
fairly, in assuming that occupancy was part of his
tenant-right. With respect to the present 13i11, he (Mr.
Fagan) did not think it half so good as that of the
Noble Lord the Member for Falkirk, which on itsin-
troduction had been so much sneered at in Ireland.
According to the Devon Commission, no less than
400,000 families were living ova farms the largest of
which was only seven acres; and what was the remedy?
The development of the resources of the country, by
which not only the tenant, but the landlord would be
materially benefited. Circumstanced as Ireland was at
present, ho did not think that itinerant lecturers, or
agricultural associations, could effect, any good. Until
the tenant obtained a substantial interest in the
soil and a long tenure of his ]and he could not
be expected to, and it was not human nature that
he would, take an interest in those scientifio lectures
upon agriculture which to men of independent means
were not only a subject of interest, but amusement.
They must first improve the condition of the tenant, and
check that undue competition for land which would in-
evitably continue so long as they had 4000000 families
existing on farms the largest of which was seven acres.

It 'the Government would encourage the distribution of
small farms of 20, 30, and 40 acres, they would, without
the aid of emigration, or colonization, or tho forced
cultivation of waste lands, do more to effect improvement
than they could possibly hope to do by the proposed
measure.

Lord CASTLEREAGH said that the measure, as far
as he understood it, would not come up to the expecta-
tions of the people of Ulster. The Hon. Member fur
Rochdale held out expectations which he did not think
could be fulfilled, aid he warned the House against
falling into either extreme, and, by doing too much or
too little, interfering with that good feeling and mutual
interest between landlord and tenant IN hich was in
practice without the aid of law in the north of Ireland.
He must say that he could not consent to any measure
which would constitute mere occupancy as property,
or which interfered with the acknowledged rights of pro-
perty.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR was of opinion that no part of
the Bill went to the root of the evil, while its machinery
was too complicated to effect the object proposed by it.
Indeed, he was satisfied that that object could only be
effected by granting a fixity of tenure to the tenant, who
would then, instead of working like a slave, devote his
free labour to the cultivation of his farm from morning
till night, knowing that ho would be remunerated for it.
If Lord Clarendon would carry out the scheme sugge►ted
of establishing the small farm system, they would bear
of no more murders and no more necessity for coercion.
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN did not think the Bill satis
factory, particularly in not having a more retrospective
effect respecting compensation for improvements, which
should not be limited to twenty-one years. He ob-
jected also to the retrospective clause being limited to
small farmers; he saw no reason why it should riot be
general.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL did not think it convenient
to go into the details of the Bill at the present stage.
He, however, concurred in the opinion of the Hon.
Member for Limerick, that the distinction drawn re-
specting the class of small occupiers, towards whom
the Bill was to be retrospective, was not a tenable dis-
tinction. If small holders were to be compensated, it
was still more necessary to encourage the larger class
of farmers. Ile hoped her Majesty's Ministers would
reconsider that point. He believed that no measure
would be of any use which did not give the compensa-
tion clause a retrospective effect, and there was no
reason why the occupier of twenty acres should not be
compensated for improvements as well as the occupier
of five or ten acres. He could not, however, concur
with his Hon. Friend the Member for Limerick, in say-
ing that there should be no limit to the period at which
those improvements were made, otherwise they might
have men claiming to be paid for an outlay on improve-
ments made a century ago by their ancestors.
Leave west then given to bring in the Bill.
AGRICULTURAL TENANT RIGHT IN
ENGLAND.

Mr. PUSEY then moved fur leave to bring in a Bill
for the improvement of agricultural tenant-right in
England and Wales. The Hon. Member explained that
the Bill would be very similar to that of last session.

Leave granted ; Mr. Posey, Mr. E. Denison, and Sir
C. Lemon to bring in the Bill.
IMPROVEMENT OF LANDED PROPERTY IN

IRELAND.

Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN moved for leave to bring in a
Bill to provide further facilities for the permanent im-
provement of landed property in Ireland.
Leave granted.
MR. ANSTEY'S MOTION.

Mr. C. ANSTEY said that, before the orders of the
day were read, he would fix his motion relating to
foreign affairs for Wednesday week, on which day the
only order (was the Roman Catholic Charitable Trusts
Bill, which, however unwilling, he would postpone in
favour of his motion.

Tile House adjourned at a Quarter past Nine.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 15.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack shortly after Five o'clock.

JEWISH DISABILITIES.

The Archbishop of YORK presented petitions
from different parts of Yorkshire against th• Jewish
Disabilities Bill.

Lord DENMAN presented petitions from different
parts of Derbyshire in favour of the Bill.

EXCISE LAWS.

Lord MONTEAGLE presented petitions from
Scotland, praying for an alteration in the Excise
laws.

BANK CHARTER.

The Earl of EGLINTON presented a petition
from Glasgow, praying for inquiry into the Bank
Charter Act of 1844.
NAVIGATION LAWS.

Lord STANLEY gave notice of his intention on
Friday week to move for the appointment of a Select
Committee to inquire into the operation of the navi-
gation laws.