The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-17 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PAULIAAIEN f.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—THURSDAY.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
On the motion that the London and South Coast Rail-
Way Bill be read a third time,
LordREDEsDALE said the bill sought to carry out certain
traffic arrangements between the London, Brighton, and
South Coast Railway and the South Eastern Railway.
Re thought before the measure passed it would be wise
to take some steps to revise the scale of tolls on the latter
railway, and for that purpose he should move that the
operation of the bill be limited to one year.

The motion was opposed by the Earl of DERev,who had
been the chairman of the committee who had considered
the bill.
On a division there appeared contents 64, not contents
88• The amendment was therefore rejected, and the bill

read a third time.
The Union of Benefices Bill passed through committee,
and was reported with amendments.
THE IRISH LAND BILL.
The adjourned debate on the motion for the second
reading of this bill was resumed by
Lord CAIRNS who said that one of the reasons given by
the noble earl opposite (Granville) for the exceptional
legislation in which they were then engaged was, that the
law of England and Ireland differed very materially both
in letter and in spirit, but he thought that fact was not a
sufficient justification for such very special legislation.
The noble lord then proceeded to refer to the action which
had been taken by the Irish Parliament in 1780 to refute
the assertion that had been made that the tenants of Ire-
land had been ground down by judge-made law, and then
passed to the consideration of the bill then before their
lordships. With respect to those clauses called Mr.
13right's, according to his opinion there was no
objection in point of principle; if any fault
Was to be found with them it was as to policy and expe-
clleueY, but he was certain it would be impossible to
create a middle or small class proprietary. As far as his
experience of mat:,ers in Ireland went such a system would
tend to extensive subletting on the smallest scale as soon

ite the. Government mortgage was paid off. He also was
°I opinion that the penalties were too severe, as also the
burdens that would be thrown on the Government during
the next 35 years whilst the sums advanced were being
repaid- They would lead to jobbery and unheard-of
evasion, and the final result would be that it would be
hopeless to enforce them without making the
Government more odious than the most unpopular land-
lord in Ireland now was. He did not approve of the

Manner in which the law of distress was dealt with. That
law, as reported by the Devon Commission, had operated
for the benefit of the small tenant ; but the bill left
all the evils of that law, and entirely destroyed the ad-
'vantages. He objected to the extension of time for giving
Notice to quit. In his opinion six months was ample. He
thought the selection of the Civil Bill Court as the
Primary tribunal was a wise provision, but he strongly
objected to the manner in which the landlords and
tenants, although willing to come to an agreement, were
compelled to resort to the courts upon which duties were
lruposed which it was impossible they could 'discharge,
for they were left to get through them in the best way
they could, and without the least assistance. With re-
'Peet to the Ulster custom he argued that the bill would
allow the tenant an option which was denied to the land-
a°ll:l, and he suggested that it should be made a provision
te the bill that such option should only be used with the
consent of the court. As regarded the compensation
clauses he much preferred the manner in which retrospec-
tive compensation was dealt with in the bill he had the
4°ll°llr to bring forward in another place. Had that
Provision been adopted they would not now have had to
deal
with the motion. He was ready to admit the
justice of compensation for improvements, although he
could not see why there should be any difference between
those made before and those after the passing of the pre-
sent Act. He thought that too small an estimate was
taken of the value of the improvements by the tenant,
and considered that the alteration throwing the burden of

41•J"..V
proof
on the landlord, which the sth clause did, was a
'llk and positive injustice, which would confiscate all
that had been laid out by the landlords to the amount of
°Yer two millions of money. The English and Scotch
system was rapidly making way, but by this clause an
euectual stop would be put to it. He was strongly
°PPosed to the system of compensation for disturb-
ance, as laid down in the third clause, which
'a hoped their lordships would not give their
assent to it without first showing its probable
01)eration, for not only was compensation to be
given irrespective of improvements made by the tenant,
or the length of the occupation, but both landlord and
tenant Were prohibited from entering into agreements or
contracts by which the action of the clause might be
mitigated for their mutual advantage and benefit. If
the ° Principle was assented to in the case of a tenant, he
did not see why it should not hold good to every service
and employment. The noble lord then raised objections
to compensation scale clauses, and with respect to the 31
Years' lease, he thought, nothing could be more advan-
tageous both to landlord and tenant than a lease for 21
Years. The clause referring to execution for non-
payment of rent was most absurd, as it fell direct
and enacted that the tenant should be paid by the land-
lord for not having paid his rent. He also strongly ob-
jected to the system of assignment allowed by the bill,and
remarked that it was most unjust to allow a tenant to

assign his farm to a man without capital, a most undesir-
able person to have on any estate, whilst the landlord was
prevented from removing the person assigned, with
whom he had no contract without paying him five or six
years' rent. In committee it would become their lord-
ships' duty to remedy the defects in this bill, and if, after
its passing, it should tend to the increased prosperity of
Ireland, which he sincerely hoped it would, it would not
be forgotten that the result was in a great measure owing
to the patriotism, the liberality, and the moderation of
the landlords of Ireland.

Viscount HALIFAX supported the motion for the second
reading of the bill, the passing of which, he felt, would
Prove highly advantageous for Ireland. There were cer-
tain points of detail that might require further consider-
ation in committee, but, on the whole, he thought the bill
a just and fair one.

Earl GREY, at some length, proceeded to examine the
enactments of the bill, and said that although it was not
a measure that had his entire approval, it was one, he
thought, which would work better than was at first ex-
pected, considering the relative positions of landlord and
tenant. There was, he admitted, circumstances that justi-
fied the interference of Parliament with a view to legisla-
tion in order to legalise the implied contract which existed
between 'them. Under the system that had existed in
Ireland for many years past there was a feeling of inse-
curity and distrust which it was absolutely necessary to
remove, and in his opinion the best way to have accom-
plished that object would be to establish a cheap
and easy form of contract, which each party, the best
Judge of its own interests, could freely enter into,
it the measure failed in that particular, and instead
it Proposed to establish a system of restriction, which did
not remove one of the old objections that existed ; but,
4)11 the contrary, it established new restrictions of a most
complicated character that could notbut produce unheard-
°l litigation. In his opinion freedom of contract ought
to be the chief basis of legislation, and that being so it
waa
not to be expected that he could approve of excep-
tional leislation, which he always looked upon as dan-
terons and objectionable. The bill in many parts
did hardly upon the landlords, and whilst it
- so he could not see that it to any great
extent benefited the tenant. Although, as he had alres,dy
Zaid,the bill would bring into existence much litigation he
hoped their their lordships would, after due consideration, pass
Ittt
t). 413 there was no prospect if they rejected the bill of a
measure being brought forward,and the disappoint-
ratut after the hopes that had been raised would be such
t it would be fraught with the utmost danger.
ti Lard ATRLUMNEY said there had been various objec-
tirla and imperfections pointed out in the measure during
e debate, yet not one of the noble lords who had
addressed their lordships had said they would not vote
or the second reading of the bill. He advised their lord-
ehiPs to pass the measure, which he felt certain would well
repay all the trouble and anxiety that had been bestowed
upono it, and tend more than anything that he was aware
° the increased prosperity of Ireland.
afr Eatl of DERBY said he held decided, and he was
-a4(l unpopular, views with respect to the measure now
dther consideration, but he might say that he agreed in
e general principles of the bill. The portion of the bill
ittiel Most objected to was that which gave compensation fof
disturbance of a tenant in his holding, which was
ecarriede out by a machinery utterly disproportionate to
alcwieet in view. Compensation for disturbance was
7 improvement—that er a novel proposition. It was not a compenSar
tror ~
-provement—that was quite natural, but it was
exiad.PaYinent for a right which had no legal or real
for " nee. In his opinion there did not exist any ground
this
compensation being given except one, and that
theirhe
misguided kindness of Irish landlords in enforcing
Iris h rights, and in the ridiculous supposition that the
his tenant was so ignorant and helpless that if he lost
resultiding he was utterly ruined. He believed the
It of the arrangement would be to arrest the agricultural
Provernent of Ireland would Az immovably the present