The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-18 00:00:00

SELLING AND HAWKING ON SUNDAYS BILL.
Lord HOUGHTON appealed to the noble and learned
lord (Chelmsford) not to press this bill in the face of the
opposition to its provisions that were expressed against
it. He referred to the amendment proposed by Lord
Teynham, and to the general dissatisfaction exhibited at
revious attempts to legislate on this subject.
Lord CHELMSFORD repeated the objections ho made
to the course pursued in opposing the bill after its having
passed a second reading, by which its principle was ap-
proved. He had undertaken the duty of introducing this
measure very reluctantly, but he did so in compliance with
petitions from thousands and tens of thousands tradesmen,
and from which it appeared that there were no less than
60,000 tradesmen, with their employ6s, who were reluc-
tantly compelled to trade on Sundays.
•Lord REDESDALE then moved a series am
endments,
the amendm nts,
the object of which was to confine the action of the bill to
the closing of shops, except for the sale of medicines during
the hours of Divine service.
Lord TAUNTON thought that if the bill were ever to
become law it would be inoperative, owing to the difficulty
of enforcing its provisions.

Earl RUSSELL was of opinion that Sunday trading had
increased very much in the metropolis during the last 30
years, and that the bill, if amended, as suggested by Lord
Redesdale, would prove a boon to the working classes, by
giving them a real day of rest.
Lord CHELMSFORD objected to accept the amend-
ments, on the ground that. they were fatal to the principle
of the measure, and intimated that if they were carried he
would withdraw the bill.
After some remarks from Lords PORTMAN and HAR-
ROWBY7

The Earl of ELLENBOROUH, though approving of the
principle of the bill, apprehended that if passed into law it
would create a standing feud between the lower classes
and the police. He believed, moreover, that the measure
would be rejected by the House of Commons in a manner
that would be an affront to their lordships. He should
therefore vote against the bill.
Earl GREY supported the bill, and argued, that if
passed its provisions ought to be enforced by the police,
and not by common informers.

On a division the amendments of Lord Redesdale were
agreed to by 54 to 41.

Lord CHELMSFORD thereupon said he would not with-
draw the bill, but that he declined to take further charge
of it.

Lord TAUNTON then gave notice that on the motion
for the third reading of the bill he would move its rejec-
tion.

Their lordships adjourned at a quarter to seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS

The following bills were read a second time and passed :
Abercarn Roads ; Aberdeen County and Municipal Build-
ings ; Belfast Burial Ground ; Bridport, Lyme, and South
Coast Railway ; Combmartin and Ilfracombe Road ; Dublin
and Kingstown Railway (Lease); Glasgow City improve-
ments, &c. ; Kilmarnock Water ; London and South
Western Railway (Additional Powers) ; Manchester,
Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (Additional Powers);
Manchester Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (New
Lines); Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Outer Works
Alteration); Mersey Pneumatic Railway ; Metropolitan Rail-
way (Additional Powers) ; North Walsham and Dilham
Canal ; Salisbury and Yeovil Railway (Capital) ; Ventnor
Gas ; and "il, alker and Wallsend Union Gas.
THAMES AND SEVERN CANAL NAVIGATION

BILL.

The adjourned debate on this bill was resumed.

It was intimated that the promoters were quite pre-
pared to certain amendments. The motion for the read-
ing of tho bill that day six months was withdrawn.

REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS BILL.

Mr. CROSSLAND gave notice that, in committee on
this bill, he should move that an additional member be
given to Huddersfield.
EAST INDIA—THE DECCAN.

Sir F. KELLY moved for a copy of all treaties and en-
gagements subsisting between his Highness the Nizam of
the Deccan and the British Government, and of all corre-
spondence between the two Governments relative to the
districts assigned by his highness for the maintenance of
" The Hyderabad Contingent," together with an account
of the income and expenditure of the above districts, and
of the cost of the contingent.

The return was ordered.
EDUCATION.
... _

Sir J. C. JERVOISE asked the Vice-Pr9sident of the
Committee of Council on Education, when the copy pre-
sented on the origin, propagation, &c., of the Cattle Plague,
27th and 28th April, 1866, would be in the hands of mem-
bers?

Mr. BRUCE said it had been ordered that a copy of the
document be furnished to evaeZwindember, and he hoped the
order would be executed in
GUNPOWDER IN EDINBURGH.
Mr. W. MILLER asked the Secretaryl3"GSTltz:te for War
of
fiveee a favourable
whether he expected soon to be able to
reply to the various memorials which had been sent to the
War-office during the last two or three yearsn
at the
the removal of the gunpowder stored at Leith prayingo andfofor
Edinburgh Castle, the quantity in the magazine
formerplace being said to amount to 130,0001b5. weight.
The Marquis of HARTINGTON said he had received
representations from Edinburgh with respect to the store-
ing of gunpowder in Edinburgh Castle, and the quantity
had been greatly reduced in consequence. With respect
to that in Leith Fort, it was not practicable to reduce
that for the present. Inquiries were going on with respect
to Mr. Gale's plan for securing stored gunpowder, and if
that should not turn out satisfactory, next year he should
take Steps for erecting a new storage instead of Leith
Fort.

THE ELECTORAL RETURNS.
Mr. SCHREIBER asked the President of the Poor-law
Board when the returns would be presented of the number
of malebetwueepir
41. n o
Wales the cities and boroughs of England and
ENFIELD
£2O.
Viscount
portion of the return D said he had just presented a great
and he hoped to be able to produce
the rest soon after v`;'.
THE LATE3.PANIC.
Capt. GRIDLEY askedtheChancellor of the Exchequer
if he was aware that the directors of the Bank of England
the lodgment of Govern-
realised bad declined to make advangrounpdont
considered
they ought
meat securities on the
directors had
realised ; and, whether he
of bank
they, on
to be
complied with the expressed understaistinsudtienLge
bank notes,
getting permission to increase the
were to afford accommodation to bankers° and mer-
chants ?
Mr. WELD said he also had a question on the subj t,
but he would vary it by asking the Chancellor of '
the
Exchequer whether ho considered the Bank had fairly
carried out the directions of the Government.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
not received any representations in the way of complaint
of the manner in which the Bank of England had acted
during the late panic. There were, however, certain
rumours abroad, and they had reached him, and he did not
think it could be said the Bank had refused accommodation.
In support of that he thought the best answer would be
the actual amount of the advances made by the Bank on
Government security. In the seven days, including the
day of the panic, the Bank had advanced no less than
£2,874,000 on Government securities, and with respect to
the accommodation afforded to commerce in general the
figures themselves would be the best answer to
any complaints. In the five days the Bank had granted

discounts on bills to theam mat of X 9,880,000; making
together advances and discounts no less a sum than
£12,225,000. He could not believe that the house would
think that the figures showed any disinclination on the
part of the Bank to give its assistance. The Ban k
autho-
rities had acted quite up to the intentions of the Govern-
ment they
in had
preference proceeded
to giving on the
everything
prudent rules
thatofthe
; establishment,
everybody asked. With respect to the refusal with re-
ference to Government Securities the Bank authorities
suggested on the Monday morning when they were
broughta had that the parties should try the open market as the
greatly ceased. At the same time it was inti-
mated' that where sales could not be effected without great
and serious loss, then the Bank would be quite ready to
meet the wants of those requiring assistance. The refusal
of the Bank directors was given to applicants for an un-
limited amount of discount, and he thought they were
right in such a determination.
TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND
(IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of the Tenure and
Improvement of Land (Ireland) Bill,
Lord NAAS moved, as an amendment, the following re-
solution: -" That this house, although desirous of simpli-
fying the method of securing to tenants compensation for
outlay made in permanent improvements, is of opinion that
in any measure relating to the tenure and improvement of
land in Ireland it is expedient to maintain the principle
affirmed by the Act of 1860, namely, that compensation to
tenants should be secured in respect of those improvements
only which are made with the consent of the landlord.
That, in the opinion of this house, the provisions as
to the improvement of land in Ireland contained in the
measure of her Majesty's Government would operate
injuriously on the position of holders of small farms in
that country." The noble lord complained that the
Government had taken up the views of those who
were agitating this question, not merely with the object of
securing compensation to the tenant, but to obtain a fixity
of tenure—the lowest rent with immovability from their
farms. He freely admitted that it was right to secure to the
tenant a fair compensation for improvements effected by
him, but complained that the Government had departed
from the principle which had hitherto been maintained,
that these improvements should be made with the know-
ledge and consent of the landlord; and this provision,
whilst it would not only be most unjust and unfair to the
landlords, would also lead to attempts at imposition which
it would be very difficult to meet. He also complained of
the manner in which the bill was drawn, and insisted that
the provision with respect to agreements would throw an
unfair odium on the landlord if he tried to protect his rights,
and create more dissatisfaction than existed already.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland contended
that the bill had been prepared with great care and mature
consideration, and the more the necessity for it was consi-
dered the more would the bill commend itself to the ap-
proval of the house. The subject was one full of difficul-
ties. It was impossible to meet the views of all parties,
but the bill had been framed in a spirit of concession and
compromise, and he trusted that the house would find that
the bill carried out the objects in view in this spirit and
with this intention. In conclusion, the Attorney-General
contended that the bill was framed to meet the natural
justice of the case, and confer great benefits upon the whole
community.
Mr. LOWE was astonished to hear it declared that the
bill now introduced was in accordance with the Act of
1860. The 38th and 40th clauses of that bill provided that
compensation was only to be given to tenants where the
improvements had been carried out with the consent of
the landlord ; but the present bill repealed those clauses.
(Hear, hear.) Not only so ; but the Chief Secretary
for Ireland, in introducing the bill, said in sub-
stance that it was contrary to natural right and justice to
enact that the landlord should be told of improvements
and should be required to sanction them before the tenant
could get compensation. The right hon. gentleman also said
in effect that although the Legislature expressly withheld
_ _ _ _

from the landlord all knowledge of the improvements as
provided for in the Act of 1860, yet he was to strive to
gain the information which was studiously withheld from
him. These were strange principles of right and justice.
If it were just that the landlord should only be charged
with the expense of these improvements when he had
knowledge of them, was not that an unjust law which pro-
vided, as far as possible, that he should not have that
knowledge? (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman
the Chief Secretary for Ireland insisted that this bill rested
upon the principles •of natural justice. At present the
landlords of England, Ireland, and Scotland enjoyed
equally the right of only being charged with such im-
provements as they consented to, provided no specification
to the contrary existed in the contract. Now, the bill
proposed to take away this privilege from the landlords of

Ireland, but to continue it to the landlords of England
and Scotland. It became, therefore, important to ascer-
tain upon what principle such a change was advocated.
If it were contended for on any ground peculiar to Ireland
he could understand it. If, however, it were put upon the
ground of natural justice and right it was not peculiar to
one country or the other, but was equally applicable to
both. He himself had always understood that natural
justice between landlord and tenant consisted in the obser-
vance on both sides of the contract which brought them
into mutual relationship. It was a retrograde policy to pass
laws limiting the power of free contract between parties.
Re held that the introduction of compulsory terms into
voluntary contracts was a blunder and a solecism in juris-
prudence. When compulsory terms were introduced into
such documents either both parties knew or did not know
of their employment. If they knew of their introduction,
and if provision were made for them in the contract, the
provision became nugatory; but if they did not know of
their ;ntroduction a fraud was committed. The principle,
therefore, sought to be embodied in the bill was unsound. '
The matter under discussion was what moralists would
call one of imperfect obligation. They were seeking to en-
force by law a thing springing out of a contract, which
should be left to be determined by contract, and with which
positive law had nothing to do. The tenant took his land
for a specific purpose, and contracted to have certain rights
and powers in connection with it. If he wont beyond these

—if he dealt with the property as though he were its law-
ful and permanent owner—if he built houses on it without
consulting his landlord, he was clearly going beyond his
province, doing what he had no right to do under the con-
tract, and had undoubtedly no claim to compensation.
They were about to apply principles to Ireland which it
was admitted ought not to be applied to England or Scot-

land, and the only reasons given in favour of so great a
change in the law were drawn from the report of the
Devon Commission, whose investigations were conducted
over 23 years ago. The Government had not shown any
practical grievance in the matter, no more than had been
shown before the select committee of last session. Why,
the only two witnesses before the committee that had
any practical acquaintance with land—namely, Mr. Cur-
ling and Lord Dufferin—were both opposed to the prin-
ciple of this bill. To him it appeared that if they took
away the dominion of a man over his property, they did
just the same as if they deprived him of the soil itself. And
when they once began upon such crude suggestions to
tamper with landlords' rights, where, let him ask, was that
sort of thing to stop ? Nor did he believe there was any
serious demand on the part of the Irish tenantry for such
a measure. (Hear, hear.) No doubt there was in Ireland
a very great wish to maintain the occupation of the land in
its present undivided state ; and it seemed to him that the
object of a law like this was not so much to protect the
tenant against his landlord, but to render difficult that
aggregation of farms which was essential for the good
cultivation of the soil of Ireland. No doubt, too, there was
a great wish on the part of a very powerful body—the
Roman Catholic priesthood—to Frevent the aggregation of
farms. He did not blame them for it ; they had to get their
living out of the benevolence of their congregations, and
they were much more interested in the people being nume-
rous than in their being wealthy. But why was it that the
tenant did not make terms with his landlord on his entry
into the land ? Why, because the demand for land was so
great that the tenant was unwilling to peril his chance
of getting a farm by demanding conditions from the land-
lord. But it was that very matter of supply and demand
which legislation could not deal with ; it must be operated
upon
hdeboyei r
anogitghareawrt
iciosair
tvt ehhsi
thing
egha
in forcing
a iat
no was being so operated upon
wtathkeisnegcponlatcrea.ctNs Now,
nwtehree '
landlord ? Surely it would be a most unpopular thing in
Ireland for a landlord to enter into a written contract
with his tenant, circumscribing the right of the latter
to engage in the work of improving his land. What a
stimulous would be given to evictions by such a provision !
If a landlord saw that he must give offence he would
come to the conclusion that he might as well get rid of
his tenant altogether. Again the inevitable result of
abolishing the law of distress must be to hurry on the
process of eviction ; landlords would at once set to work to
turn out every tenant who could not be trusted as a debtor.
They
knew, too, that in Ireland there were dreamsextend-
ing far beyond the matter of compensation—theyt. kntehwe that
people there would say
epat hi a
n.
them
es
de
p vnsei,letltiwoan,ass uai nt
we ss
ei tt mockery
oweaosoo aogcl
o cvroae mg
wrigithht
fitoxidtyemoaf
ntedncuorme.
vailed in (Alter parts of the king
dreams by breaking down ,twhosielormule?s
(oifielaa:.,vhweahii.c.)h pre-
perfectly
ueplsoenit
iwas
inecessary- that
Ireland more than for any
their legislation should proceedwhere
plain and defensible. (Hear, hear.) If he had to describethere, he would say
the policy which should be followed
it must be one of patience, forbearance, calmness, and im-
partiality. (Cheers.)
Mr. J. S. MILL said it was an auspicious day
for Ireland,
which formed so integral a part of the British empire,
when the Government consented to introduce so im-
,rtant a measure. He ventured to express the opinion
that no bill ever introduced or carried by any Govern-
ment, not even the Catholic Emancipation Act itself,
allowed a more just appreciation of the needs of Ireland,
or went more straight to th
in fulfil
by the Chancellor of the
Exchequerem ehne
ta rof
the
ehaet
rhl
promise
rt
oi
nmcountry,oe
heldsession,
othanu
this one, brought int
that it was the intention of the Government to legislate
for Ireland according to Irish exigenc)ies,That:d not accords
tt
ao
nne Englishn f
the
problem routine.
before (Hear, htehaerm.
when'they came to
was still the
legislate on this subject ; Ireland was not a
substance
dependency;

she was a part of our own Government. He would not
go into the question of the difference of race, but he would
ask the house to consider the difference in the history of
the two countries, and to trace the effactsof that difference
on the Irish character. It had been said that what would
do for England might do for Ireland ; and it might be asked
why had not we been able to apply in that country the
sciences and arts which in this had led to national pro-
sperity ? In this application of the same laws to England
and Ireland, they showed that double ignorance which
was older than the time of Socrates, and they were disre-
garding that precept which was inscribed on the temple of
Delphi ; they not only did not know the people of whom
they were talking, but they did not know themselves.
The fact was that Ireland was not an exceptional country,
but England was. (Hear, hear.) It was England that was
exceptional. Was there any other country on the face of
the earth where, as a general rule, the land was held in
large patches, and was farmed by a capitalist at a rent
fixed by contract, while the mass of the people were en-
tirely detached from it, and simply received their day's
wages ? (Hear, hear.) In all countries where the culti-
vators of the soil emerged. from the condition of slavery,
or from that modified form of slavery called serfdom, the
tillers of the laid held that land direct from the landlord.
There did not exist—or there existed only as a middle
class—the capitalist farmer. In this respect, therefore,
Ireland resembled the rest of the world. It was England
that was peculiar. Was it, therefore, right to look to
England's experience to meet Ireland's exceptional case ?
They ought rather to look to Continental experiences,
for it was there where the similarity to Ireland would
be found to exist. What did Continental experience tell
them as a matter of historical fact ? It told them that
wherever a system of agricultural economy like that in
Ireland had been found consistent with the good cultiva-
tion of the land and the good condition of its peasants,
rents had not been as in Ireland fixed by contract, but
the occupier had had the protection of fixed usage —(hear)
—the custom of the country, and had secured to him per-
manence of tenure so long as he pleased to possess it. The
peasant system never had succeeded without tenant right
and fixity of tenure. Was he going to ask them to give
fixity of tenure and tenant right ? Perhaps it might be
sufficient to say that he knew they would not give those
things. (A laugh.) How, then, was this to be brought
about ? This was not the first time a problem of this sort
had been proposed. The French economists of the 18th
century tried to deal with a state of things very similar to
that which the Government had now to deal with, and they
wanted to do exactly what the Government wanted to do.
They had a wretched, (lov/11-trodden, half-starved class of
cultivators, and they wanted to have the capitalists instead
of these. A considerable number tried this, but nothing
came of it, and the reform of agriculture in France had to
wait for the Revolution. To what did they ascribe their
failure ? They attempted to put farmers over the peasants
when they ought to have elevated the peasants into far-
mers. If England wished to succeed where France failed,
it would be accomplished by avoiding what they did. It
was not by elevating the peasants over the heads of the
tenants, but they must take the peasants and elevate them.
(Hear.) Suppose matters could be smothered by putting in
a special class of peasant tenantry : were they going to ex-
patriate a whole people, were they going to put such a
strain on the rights of property as no nationality ever
seen could bear and not snap? How, then, were the Irish
peasant farmers to be organised ? There was one way,
and it was the way this bill ought to take : Give them what
you can of the blessed effects of ownership—(hear, hear)
—make them feel secure that they themselves shall enjoy
the benefits of their labours. Make the benefits be for
their own use, and not for the use exclusively of the land-

lord. (Hear, hear.) The English system worked well,
and was at any rate compatible with improvements. In
England and Scotland time was given the farmer to reap
the benefit of the improvements he had made, and they
frequently made improvements in consequence of that
general agreement. There was at any rate never any ap-
prehension that the landlord would take advantage of
them. What did they find in Ireland ? The contrary in
every respect. (No, no, and hear, hear.) There the land-
lord made no improvement. (No, no.) He knew there
were some who did.
Mr. MAGUIRE—As a rule they do not.
Mr. MlLL—There is no confidence whatever, as a rule,
between landlord and tenant.
Lord NAAS—No, no.

Mr. MILL—The consequence of that is, that the tenants
are afraid to trust their landlord, or if they do so, they do
not trust the heir or the stranger who may purchase the
property. To such a pitch was this distrust carried, that
the farmers invested their money not in improvements on
their farms, but in English banks and securities. This,
however, showed that a large proportion of the landlords
were not grasping, and did not exact the last farthing,
because it showed that, in spite of the evils, the sum which
the tenant by the forbearance of the landlord had been
enabled to accumulate had been carried away and devoted

to a purpose other than the natural one of improvement of
the soil. Were they going to let this state of things con-
tinue ? They ought to bo ashamed of it ; and there was
but one way of getting rid of it. Let the tenant have com-
pensation adjudged by an impartial tribunal for the in-
creased value which he had given, and only that which he
. had given, to the land. This bill provided such a tribunal,
which would, he believed, possess the confidence of the
country. An hon. gentleman opposite had said it was not
compensation the landlords objected to; what they objected
to was improvements for which their consent had not been
obtained. Now, this was the real question, and experience
had shown that where there was no confidence between
landlord and tenant improvements were not made. The
tenant was afraid to serve a notice on his landlord, he
was afraid to announce beforehand that he was in a con-
dition to perform improvements lest he should be raised to
a higher rent ; he might also have an opinion that the
landlord disliked improvements altogether, from a mere
desire to keep his tenantry in a state of dependence. What
would the landlord lose by this arrangement ? He would
still retain the power to restrain improvements, and for
buildings which were not improvements the tenant would
i receive ctehi v. ei
uncor
ecaosnelap evnasl au tei oonf
.thellseoiwio; übludthbayvethitshebilaldtvhaenotnagues
would be thrown upon him of prohibiting a public benefit.
The right of the improver of land to the value of his im-
provements, so far from being in antagonism to the rights
of landed property, was a right of the same description, and
rested on the same terms. What were the rights of pro-
-1 perty ? Perhaps hon. members thought he was going to
talk heresy on this point, and to say that there was no
right to property because no man made the land. If no
man made the land, did any man obtain the right by grant
or purchase from the maker of it ? His answer was this.
Though no man made the land, man by his industry made
it become useful and valuable. But was this right to be
strictly confined to the original improver of the land ? He
did not contend that another should oust him, but he did
contend that the first man had not an indefeasible right to
prevent another improving it. The first had no right ex-
cept a moral right to improve it, and unless they recog-
-1 nised that right, they abandoned that moral foundation on
which property rested, and indeed all except that of actual
possession, a view which led to most monstrous evils. No
doubt there were thoughtful Conservatives, and he could
not believe they were all on that side of the house (the
Liberal side). A most eminent Conservative—Mr. Cole-
ridge—in his second "Lay Sermon," had, indeed, laid down
a theory as to property in land, compared with which any
thing he (Mr. Mill) had attempted was mere milk and
water. It appeared to him that the retention of property
of this kind could only be justified after the well-being
of the inhabitants had been completely fulfilled. All
he asked, however, was that improvements should be
considered in a light not inconsistent with the true nature
of property. This house had now a golden opportunity.
He had heard it said by members of that house—men
commonly stated as of extreme opinions—men who were
of the Irish, Irish, and who had the full confidence of
what was called the national party—that by what had
hitherto been done for Ireland the people had scarcely
been touched, but when they were their nature would be
assimilated to ours—they would bo converted to our views.
If then by so moderate a concession as was given in this
bill so groat a benefit could be achieved, let them not re-
fuse it. This measure was not so fearful and dangerous a
thing that they should decline to give it to a nation to
whom so great a debt of reparation was due that she ought ,
to be regarded as a spoiled child of this country, and to be
treated not merely with justice, but with generous indul-
gence. He was present when that affecting speech on the
Reform Bill was delivered by the hon. member for Tralee
(the O'Donoghue), when he held out his hand and declared
that even if any one party could show they felt Irishmen
to be their fellow-countrymen, the Irishmen were willing
to be so, to labour by their side, and to have the same
objects with them. Many a man must have felt as he did
when he listened to the eloquent remarks of the hon. mem-
ber, that his speech was the beginning of a new era. Lot
it not be said that, with the best possible intentions to-
wards Ireland, no length of time or abundance of experi-
ence could teach them to understand her—whether it was
insular narrowness made them incapable of imagining that
Ireland's exigencies could be in any way different from
England's, or because the religious respect they cherished
for everything that had the smallest savour of right of
property had degenerated—as was sometimes with other
religions—into superstition. No. Let them rather show
that their principles of government were not mere genera-
lities from English facts—that in acting and legislating for
Ireland they could give due consideration to the circum-
stances of Ireland, and that their care for landed property
was an intelligent regard for its essential uses and for the
purposes it fulfilled, and not a slavish prostration before its
mere name. (Cheers.)

Mr. Druox and Mr. Pim supported the bill, which, they
contended, would do much to put an end to the agitation
which prevailed in Ireland in reference to the unsatisfac
tory relations between landlord and tenant.
Mr. READ, speaking as a tenant farmer himself, was of
opinion that if a tenant enjoyed the land long enough to
reimburse the capital he had expended on it, the landlord
was entitled to come into full possession of his property. A
21 years' lease would, he thought, be ample for the protec-
tion of the tenant. As the bill proposed to introduce an
entirely new and dangerous principle, ho would be obliged
to give a reluctant vote against it.
Mr. WHITESIDE contended that the bill was not re-