The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-12 00:00:00

THE GAUGES.

Sir GEORGE GREY said he wished to know if the
Government intended to propose any measure founded on the
minute of the Board of Trade relative to the report of the
Broad Gauge Commission?
Sir. G. CLERK said he wished to state in answer to the
question of the Right Hon. Baronet, that it was his intention
to move, on Monday next, a series of resolutions founded upon
the report of the Broad Guage Commission.
LIGHTHOUSES.

Mr. P. STEWART said he wished to put a question to
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
on a lubject of great importance—namely, the subject of light-
houses. He wished to ask if it was the intention
of Government to carry out the recommendation of the Com-
mittee which sat upou the subject last year—namely, that all
lighthouses and buoys, necessary for the safe navigation of our
seas and rivers, should be paid for and maintained out of the
public revenue, instead of from tolls levied upon the tonnage
of shipping ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted
that the subject was one of very great importance, and one
which had long been under the consideration of Government,
but he could give no assurance to the Eon. Member of carry-
ing out the recommendation of the Committee.
PETITIONS OF MR. FLETCHER.

Mr. AINSWORTH moved that the petitions of J. Fletcher
Fletcher, against the Manchester, Bolton, and Bury Canal
Navigation and Railway Bill, and the Manchester, Bolton,
and Bury Canal Navigation and Railway Extension Bill, be re-
ferred to the Committee on the Bills.
After a few words from Lord Granville Somerset, Mr.
Greene, and Mr. Hodgson,
Mr. AINSWORTH withdrew the motion.

IMPROVEMENT OF IRELAND.—(COMPENSATION
TO TENANTS, .POWER OF EJECTMENT, AND
SHORT LEASE BILLS.)
Lord LINCOLN, in moving for leave to introduce Bills to
provide Compensation to Tenants of Land in Ireland for
Improvements made by them; to amend the Law in
respect to the power of Ejectment and Distress in Ireland,
and to provide for a short form of Lease of Lands and Tenements
said it was his duty, a few doss ago, to address the House on a
subject connected with Ireland, on which great feelings of
antagonism were created in that House and elsewhere.
But it was now his duty to address the House on a subject which
he trusted would meet with the general approbation of the
House. It was one on which he hoped all men would
unite, as it was one on which no feelings of political
animosity would be excited, one on which they could enter
with no different feelings, except to emulate each other as to
what was best to be done for the benefit of the pe. Ve of
Ireland by improving their condttton, and putting tstin in a
better po.ition to cultivate the soil, and by giving them
better security for the investment of their capital in
land, for we hout that security the proper cultiva-
tion of the soil could not he effected. He thought
it would better suit the convenience of the House to
introduce the three hills to effect these objects together.
He need not inform the House hat a commission had been
appointed to inquire into the stare of Ireland, and that that.
commission had made such reports to the Government as drew
their attention to the tenant system of Leland.—(Hear,
hear.). Three Members of that commission were Also
Members of that House, and that they were tally qualified
for the very arduous duties- they had performed.— Hear.)
This motion had partly emanated from the reports of that
Commissioner; when he said this, he did not mean it to be
understood, that the many recommendations made by the
Commissioners bad been entirely dealt with. But it
was not because there were not other measures brought
forward, or those recommended, that they might not
be brought forward at a future time. This question was nut
quite new to the House, for it bad been fully argued by the
press and other great authorities of this country, so that it
was pretty well understood. This being the case, it
would be troubling the House to bring forward fresh argu-
ments in support of the policy of this question. He
would therefore avoid touching on such topics as did not
immediately bear on the question before the House. No one
would deny that this was a most difficult subject for legislation,
and it would also be admitted to be as delicate as it was
difficult. When he said that it was encircled with difficulties,
as a legislative question, he did -not mean to say that it was
a subject perfectly understood by the House, for it had been
repeatedly brought forward by the Honourable Member for
Rochdale, but who had as repeatedly as he had brought it
forward altered his intentions with respect to the manner in
which he would have the House entertain the subject.
Nowaeeling as he did, that it was not only right, but necessary,
for Parliament to. attempt to legislate on this subject, at
the same time he felt that, whatever Bill they might pass, the
relations of landlord and tenant, and relations ot that nature,
could be regulated so that much would not be left to be done
by themselves. Much must still be left to the justice and mo-
deration and good feeling of both parties interested—he meant
the landlord and tenant. Parliament, he thought, ought to at-
tempt to enact salutary laws on the subject, but he was convinced
that much must depend still on the individual eharactt r and
conduct of the landlords themselves. Their legislation would
be successful, and he felt certain that much, though not enough,
could be done. He felt convinced that the Noble Lord op-
posite (Lord John Russell) agreed in these views of the sub-
ject, for during the present session he delivered a speech,
when he said that it would be most unwise for Parliament to
touch upon and unsettle these relations, especially in Ireland,
unless after sufficient inquiry into them. Having now stated what
Parliament could do, and also what ought to be done, he was
convinced by the report which had been made by the com-
mission, and other documents that had been laid before the
public, that it was the duty of Parliament to take
up and legislate upon this subject. He might be
told, and with some show of argument, that they
ought not to interfere with landlord and tenant,
but he was not prepared to admit the abstract doctrine. The
Noble Lord was struck with an expression used by Mr.
Nicholls, the Poor-law Commissioner. Speaking of the poor-
law in Ireland, he said, ‘• Want of employment brought on
destitution, destitution caused turbulence, turbulence was
followed by insecurity, insecurity by want of capital, and want
cf capital by famine." He felt that the views expressed
by the Commission were correct, and that it was not only
justifiable, but binding on the House to interfere.
Before going further into the subject, he would draw the at-
tention of the House to a few of the leading clauses of the
first of these three Bills. It should be observed that the report
of the Commission recommended that wherever the
tenantry of Ireland possessed any superfluous capital,
they should be enceuraged to invest it in the
soil of the country. But it was to be lamented
that the only capital which the Irish tenantry possessed con-
sisted in the labour of themselves and their families. Look at
the :produce of this countrt, was it not universally allowed
that wherever they had any superfluity they were always ready
to co-operate with their landlords? And he thought, therefore,
that the other recommendation of the Commission should al.°
be attended to, and that the landlords should also be encou-
raged to co-operate with their tenantry in the .general im-
provement of the soil, and that facilities should be given for
entering into agreements for their common' advantage. Not
that he conceived that all these evili were to be cured by le-
gislation, .but the Legislature might do much ; and one point
to which he would direct their attention wan that shown in the
first of these three Bills. It would be in the recollection of
the: House, that when,last year his Noble Fri€nd the- late Se-
cretary for the Colonies (Lord Stanley) proposed to bring in
-a Rill for.the improvement, of the condition of the Irish pea-
santry, he proposed .te establish an entirely new machinery.
But suckwas not the case now. The same machinery would
still be necessary, and that portion relating to the employment
of assistant barristers was, to be retained. The Bills had two
kinds of compensation—voluntary agreement, and that which
was to be compulsory. By voluntary agreement he meant 'all
improvements that did not come under the head of compulsory
compensation,' and those improvements were not to be made a
charge upon the laud. The improvements, as he had observed,
were of two kinds, and they had this broad distinction, that
all; improvements relating to buildings and furrow drainage
were to be under the head of compulsory compensation, and
were chargeable on the land, while general improvements, not
of this character, were to be classed under the head of volun-
tary agreement, and not so chargeable. With regard to volun.
tart' agreements it is provided that if any tenant wishes to
effect any general improvement, he shall serge a notice in the
form provided in the schedule of the Act on the immediate land-
lord. If the landlord agrees, then he will signify his assent in
the form also provided in the Act, and then improvement may
be carried into immolate, effect. If he .refuses, the whole
matterdrons to the ground. By the second course the tenant
has the option, if the landlord's consent is got, of enforcing
compulsory compensation for any buildings erected, or for fur-
row draining. On this point the Bill differed from the view of the
Commissioners; their view was that buildings only, and not
furrow drainage, should be considered as coming tinder the head
of compulsory compensation, thus assimulatiog the law to
what it was in England. But furrow draining was so essential
an improvement in Ireland, that he hoped under exisiting
circumstances the House would see the propriety of deciding
that draining as well as building should be included. He hoped
also the Commissioners would have no objection to
1 the alteration, as Ireland was as present situated. He need not
point out to the House that, in justice to the landlords, they
would he forced to provide wardens to examine carefully into
all the improvements that were proposed to be made. In that
stage of his explanations, he might mention one diffieulty,which
he was sure everybody who had looked into the subject was
aware of, namely, that at this part of their proceedings they
with this wwßeiitirthe,lmnie.aiethh the confidently
ofiibffidj culies which they would not be met with if
they were applied to England—the multiplicity of landowners
in Ireland. This difficulty had, however, been aimed at in the
time
siexpectedteterdr
otuhnadt
groat
usdloidffimbeeeuosl
difficulties
surmounted
di ate nedu,ltbiuetat the same s
exist in
connexion .
be
had, portion of the Bill. The notice to which
rrheed was to be served upon all
landlords, and
immediate landownerwas informed that the tenant and
the various parties who ci,iied the land -
fore, tie had proved tint which end. there-
be necessary—that the notice atiould hesewri,v,nl he thought
lord by those renting lard for a certain period,
tiaurpnoell the lari4-
3,ears' tenancy,
three lire—the notice on the iyin'n'ist,itiltactiYe
landlord being 'by personal appearance, but on the owner of
the land by post. When the tenant served this notice be
was to be bound to name an arbitrator, and to offer either
to construct the work himself, or if the landlord would do so
to agree to pay the additional expense on the outlay, amounting
to not more than 51. per cent on buildings, and 4/. per cent.
This, however, was a matter of • •
on drainage. T detail which
might be altered in Committee if the House thought fit, The
reason of the introduction must be obvious—that it was better
that buildings should be constructed by the landlord, instead of
the had a great security that if
the tenant, because Y. co
be properly made n.
1 landlord they would
structed by the
fit for use.-(Hear, hear.) And then so much depended upon
the drainage of theb
executed ins proper manner.
landeing
But this, as he had already
said, to „ was a matter so much of
w ith it. If
de-
tail, that it would be for the Committee it aw ould becomethe
a
landlord should assent to this proposition,
charge upon the inheritance, and once be carried out;
would at
but if he did not, then be should servo a motion to that effect
upon the Clerk of the Peace; that an arbitrator should be ap-
pointed, and that appointment should rest with the assistatant
barrister and the justices ot the quarter sessions; if the arbi-
trators should agree, then they would make an award, but if they
did not, then au umpire §heuld be appointed,