The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-18 00:00:00

ENTAILED ESTATES IMPROVEMENT.

The Duke of RICHMOND was induced to submit a
motion connected with entailed estates, because the
improvement of such estates was closely connected
with the improvement of agriculture ; and he
believed that there was no person who was
not satisfied that thorough drainage was one of the
principal means by which that improvement was to be
effected. There was an Act in existence in Scotland
called the Montgomery Act, and in 1840 an Act was
passed to effect something of the same kind in England,
through the instrumentality of Mr. Pusey. But in those
Acts entailed estates had been overlooked, and it was evi-
dent from the owners only having a life-interest in such
estates, and from the natural anxiety which they felt to
provide for their younger children, that these estates
would not have fair play and share in that improvement
which was necessary for the general benefit of the coun-
try. The passing of such a motion as he had to make
would have, if passed, the effect of providing for the in-
dustrious and worthy agricultural labourer that employ-
ment which he now too often sought in vain, and of
giving him a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. He
saw, with much satisfaction, that the commission of
which his Noble Friend (the Earl of Devon) was the
head, had recommended such a measure as this for Ire-
land, and as he (the Duke of Richmond) believed that it
was calculated to do good to both countries, he should
move that a Select Committee be appointed, with a view
to some legislative enactment for enabling the possessors
of entailed estates to charge such estates with a certain
sum, to be limited, and to be expended in drainage for
the improvement of the same.
The Duke of CLEVELAND said that as the object
of this motion was to improve these estates permanently,
and would be as much for the benefit of the successors
to the estates as for the possessors of them, and as
drainage was an improvement that would last for ever,
he thought that no objection could be possibly enter-
tained against it, and he should therefore very readily
second the motion.
Lord ASHBURTON saw no great objection to the
motion, but he thought that the charge ought to he for a
certain number of years, and not a permanent charge.
Lord BEAUMONT suggested that there were certain
drainage companies in Yorkshire and elsewhere who
would by such an Act as that proposed by the Noble Duke
(the Duke of Richmond) be enabled to enter into ar-
rangements with the owners of the entailed estates. By
the plan of these companies the possessors of estates
were enabled to drain their lands by allowirs, certain
portions of the profits to the companies. There' were
some thing.] which would have to be guarded against,
but that could be done in Committee.
The Duke of RICHMOND assented to the sugges-
tion of his Noble Friend, and would be glad to go into
details with him in the Committee. .

The Committee was granted, and, on the motion of
the Duke of RICHMOND, the Lord Chancellor, the
Lord Privy Seal, the Duke of Cleveland, Lord Brougham.
and several other noblemen, were nominated.
LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of DALHOUSIE,
The House went into Committee on the Lands Clauses
Consolidation Bill.
Lord REDESDALE objected to the clause which
gave power to the railway companies to deviate to the
extent of 100 yards on each side of their line, and also
to the paragraph which empowered them to enter upon
land to the extent of 500 yards, for the purpose of dig-
ging clay or gravel.
The remaining clauses were agreed to with amend-
ments • and the House having resumed, the CHAIRMAN
reported progress.
LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION (SCOT-
LAND) BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of DALHOUSIE, the
Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Bill went through
Committee.