The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-16 00:00:00

landlord and tenant bill as it purported to be, but one deal
ing with real property. Now, surely, if it were a good
principle for Ireland, why not apply it to England ? and
why make Ireland an exceptional case ? He found that
throughout the whole of the bill all the questions raised
were to be decided by Chairmen of the Quarter Sessions.
He did not wish to say anything to disparage those learned
gentlemen, but he thought questions of such importance
as the relation between the landlord in fee and the limited
landlord, ought to be submitted to a higher tribunal. Be-
sides, the bill allowed no appeal from their decision, and
that made the bill very objectionable. Then, as to that
portion of it which allowed the limited owner to grant
leases for 21 years, and, improvement leases for 41 years, it
was dealing with the interests of the inheritor, who was not
able to protect himself. In the cases of minors they all
knew how careless and ruinous guardians and trustees
were; and if a limited owner chose to commit a fraud he
might very easily do so. For example, there were many
persons in Ireland who would be glad to pay a large sum
of money for a lease of 41 years, and many opportunities
would be given to the limited owner to receive this money
at the expense of the inheritor. He had always a great ob-
jection to long leases in Ireland, and he admitted that now
the tenure was generally from year to year. In his opinion
the evils of snb-letting, and many others which had been the
curse of Ireland, and were now passing away, arose from the
system of giving long leases in the last century. In Scotland,
where agriculture was brought to the highest perfection,
the leases were only for 21 years. Then, as to the question
of tenant-right introduced into the bill, he did not believe
it would please hon. members from Ireland. He did not
wish to disparage the labours of the Devon Commission;
but they went about the country taking evidence, and they
only heard .one side of the question. The Devon Commis-
sion reminded him of a bad "photograph," where all the
prominent features were enlarged, and all the best parts
were thrown into shade. (Laughter.) The country was
altogether changed now from what it was in 1810, when the
Devon Commission were taking evidence, and a different
state of things altogether existed. The agencies between
landlord and tenant were now far better regulated and car-
ried on between the landlords and tenants themselves than
they could .be by any legislative intervention. (Hear, hear.)
Much of the difficulties that existed in these relations were
attributable to the subletting system that at one time so
much prevailed in Ireland, but that system was now fast
- passing away, and the landlords generally in Ireland were
resolved to eschew any relation but those which should sub-
sist directly between themselves and their tenants. (Hear,
hear.) It had been said by an honourable member (Mr.
Pope Hennessy) that Ireland was going back in the scale,
but that was not correct. It had been said by that hon-
ourable gentleman that the acreage of the cereal crops in
Ireland had very much fallen off, and that so negli-
gently was the farming carried on in Ireland, owing to
the want of tenant right, that the "horned" cattle broke
into the corn fields, trod down, trampled, and ate the corn—
, " horned" cattle seemed to be the great bugbear of the hon.
member. But whether there was now less acreage of corn
than formerly in Ireland one thing was certain, that agri-
culture in Ireland was greatly improved, and that the con-
ditiOn of the peasantry was visibly and happily improved in
proportion. They were now better fed, better dressed, and
better housed than formerly. He must condemn legislative
interference between landlords and tenants. One thing he
was certainly ready to admit, namely, that the right hon.
gentleman's bill was the mildest " tenant-right" bill that
had yet been proposed ; but it was a measure which was
really not called for. The wisest legislation would be that
which would unite England and Ireland more closely, and
assimilate them itt their institutions; but he looked upon
this bill as mischievous, unnecessary, and uncalled for, and
with those opinions he should conclude by moving that the
bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. MAGUIRE had often listened with plea'sure to the
talented speeches delivered by the hon. baronet who had
. just sat down; but he must say that a stranger and more
unaccountable speech than that delivered on the present
occasion by the hien. baronet he had never heard. The hon.
baronet objected to the details of the bill; but, taken as a
whole, he thought the Government deserved credit for the
measure, and he (Mr. Maguire) should earnestly oppose the
hon bares motion that the bill beread a second time that day
six months. The hon. baronet objected to giving power to
the chairmen of quarter sessions; but he (Mr. Maguire) knew
those gentlemen well. They were in numerous instances
landlords themselves, and were so thoroughly landlord in
heart that there was no reason for the hon. baronet to be ap-
prehensive about their exercise of the power proposed to be
conferred upon them by the bill. The hon. baronet' found
fault with and severely criticised the Devon Commission
but there was no statesman who had perused the document
that emanated from the labours of that commission, but
was prepared to approve of it; and to be guided by it.
What the friends of the honest and industrious agricul-
turists of the country demanded were improvement leases,
giving compensation for improvement of the land by the
investment cf capital and labour. It was not true that in
the bill under consideration the Government had introduced
a new system—one for England and another for Ireland .
It was the landlords who had done so. In England the
landlord did everything for the benefit of the tenant, but in
Ireland the landlord did nothing for the tenant. He (Mr,
Maguire) could not agree in the hon. baronet's vivid de.
scription of the prosperity of Ireland. Was there in that
prosperity all cause for rejoicing and no cause for regret
and sorrow ? What could be more fearful than the descrip-
tion given last session respecting ene district in Donegal,
where the people lived on sea••weed and bad potatoes ?
(Hear, hear.) It was quite true they had not grim poverty
and destitution, la& there was no contrast between the state
of England and the state of Ireland. The people were
afraid to put their labour and capital in the soil, because
they were at the mercy of tyrannical, political, and foolish
landlords. He admitted there were many good landlords
in Ireland, but it was too much the practice on the part of
Irish landlords to raise the rents on those tenants who op-
posed them at elections. The franchise in Ireland was
almost a curse, for tenants were often turned off at a mo-
ment's notice for exercising that franchise according to the
dictates of their conscience. To the third portion of the
bill he had objections. (Hear, hear.) There were short-
comings in the bill ,which they should, in justice to the
tenantry of Ireland, endeavour to have improved in com-
mittee. The bill said that the tenant should not improve
the land without the consent of the landlord ; but what he
contended for was, that any tenant anxious to improve in a
substantial and valuable manner should have every facility
afforded him for doing so. The bill would be of no value
in Inland unless those facilities were granted. What in-
jury to the estate or evil to any human being could follow
the improvement and reclamation of the tenant's holding ?
The veto of the landlord should not be put as a bar to the
determination to improve on the part of the tenure. Another
grievous error in the bill was the totally insufficient com-
pensation proposed for improvements. He would not, how-
ever, anticipate what might be done in committee to im-
prove this part of the measure. The people of Ireland were
discontented, but wise and generous legislation would make
them happy and contented. Discentent and the emigration
of the people was not a sign of contentment. There was
now a deep-lying sense of wrong in the Irish heart, and
every emigrant from the Irish shores carried that sentiment
with him to a foreign country. If something was not done
to stop this emigration, you would lose your right hand in
time of war. The Irish could be made the best soldiers in the
shortest time—they had a natural taste for military opera-
tions—and it would therefore be wise on the part of the Go-
vernment to keep them at home, where they could be had
in a case of emergency. The bill was not a large or revolu-
tionary scheme—it was a mere abortion—but nevertheless
he would support it as a step in the right direction. Lot no
gentleman imagine there was so much prosperity in Ireland
as was reported. Why not enable the people to be prepared
for any emergency ? The weather, if it had not lately
changed, would have prostrated the whole country. He
wanted to make the people of Ireland prosperous, con-
tented, and happy.
Mr. GEORGE said he had as much knowledge and ex-
perience of Ireland as the hon. gentleman who spoke last,
and he must say that his statements respecting the land-
lords were grossly exaggerated, not to say unfounded. He
hoped the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for Ireland
would be no party to subvert the rights of property in Ire-
land, but, while he protected property, would do justice
to the tenants. Allusion had been made to that cele
brated document which emanated from the Devon Com.

mission, and he must observe that the witnesses examined
were those who professed to have grievances. But in 1845,
when the Devon Commission sat, there was undoubtedly
much to complain of; but what were the circumstances of
Ireland now P In 1849 the number of paupers was 620,747,
while in 1860 the number was only 440,929. In 1819 the
convictions were 310,202 ; in 1859, 200,735 ; in 1849 the
acquittals were 700,347 ;in 1859, only 300,000. Allusion
had been made to the diminution of the cereal crops, but
the increased emigration fully accounted for this. The

diminution of labourers diverted the attention of farmers

from tillage, and led them to engage in grazing. At the
-

time of the Devon commission the number of holdings was
691,100. Since then there had been a decrease on account

of emigration, and other circumstances, of about 131,000.
The Devon commission therefore furnished no criterion to

decide this question. (Hear, hear.) Tbere were several bills
now before the house with reference to Irish matters, and

with the exception of the ono brought in by the right hon.
gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland, none of them
was worthy of general acceptance. (Cries of " Divide.")
He objected to such immense powers being left in the hands
of county judges as to allowing tenants for life to borrow
such large sums of money, and landlords to make such
agreements with tenants as were provided for under the 3d

section. He objected also to the enormous powe s given
to the tenants for life. He objected that out of an estate of
£l,OOO a-year, borrowing powers were given to the extent
of £4OO a-year, which could thus be alienated from the ob-
jects for which they were devised. He should, however,

support the seconi reading of the bill, without pledging'
himself as to details, which could be considered in coin-

mittee.

Mr. POLLARD URQUHART, amid loud and long
continued cries for a division, said they ought not to go on

with a bill unless it was of such a nature as to render it
likely that it would pass both houses of Parliament. No-
thing was more objectionable to both landlord and tenant
than a law of this kind banging over them year after year
• _

as it pr9y94t9d improyemmto berg mob for fcAr of what