The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-25 00:00:00

cidedly in favour of the chief enactments of the Bill, and when '
he looked to the enactments of this Bill he found that the
Government officer was the person who was to carry them out.
He was quite ready to give every facility to the arrangements of
the Bill, and he should therefore be glad to vote for the Bill, so
far as it went, to promote the advantage of Ireland. But this
was a direct interference with the right of property.
It was in fact neither more nor less than oblig-
ing a compensation for those alterations which
were made upon the estate, whether it was to its advan-
tage or its prejudice. The law, where there was a lease, pro-
vided for the evil, and how the Commissioners could come to
a conclusion whether these improvements were to the advan.
t age or to the prejudice of the estate he could not possibly ima-
gine. If the landlord and tenant were agreed as to the terms
of the agreement, no Bill was necessary. But, suppose the
landlord to disagree, the Bill might provide a remedy. They
were very much indebted to the Noble Lord for his labours in
this field. But during the whole of the time for which a lease
was granted the tenant could not be ejected. On these grounds
he thought it necessary to give his vote against the Bill.
Lord STANLEY—I shall not, at this late hour of the
night, attempt to enter into any discussion respecting the
merits of this Bill. lam certainly not prepared to enter fully
into the feelings of the Noble Marquis and of my Noble Friend
who has just sat down. Those Noble Lords might well con-
ceive that, from their knowledge of their own estates, and from
the way in which they were managed, that no complaint could
possibly exist as to the management, at least so far as their own
experience was concerned, of their estates. But a difference
may exist as to the future, and I do not apprehend that any
difficulty will arise which will at all affect the working of this
I Bill. I should feel, my Lords, as if I had no task to perform if
I had merely to answer the objections of the Noble Lord, but I
feel conscious that I have something more than that to do.
And when I look at the objections of the Noble Duke on the
cross benches, and feel that those observations require that the
Bill should be extended to England and Scotland, I am com-
pelled to observe that there is a great difference between the
tenant in Scotland and the tenant in England. lam aware
that the principle of compensation should be allowed, and that
a tenant should receive the advantage of his autlay. In Eng-
land the relation between landlord and tenant is essentially dif-
ferent from that in Ireland. In either of the other two countries
there was an allowance made for the improvement which had
been made upon the estate without any regard to the ultimate
benefit of the alteration. But in this Bill the compensation
had only reference to the permanent advantage of the property,
and in proportion to the advantage which a tenant had wrought
upon the estates was to be the compensation. and that, too, not
in accordance with the legal rule, but according to the prin-
ciple which has invariably been recognised as the rule by which
compensation should be granted. Ihave paid great attention
to this subject, and I am compelled to observe th A there is but
ltttle attention paid to the improved relation of landlord and
tenant. It is supposed that the mere title of right exists in
consequence of the occupation of the land, but I am prepared
to show that this is not a fair representation of the positions in
which the landlords stand. They have another and a greater
tie. Almost all the land in Ireland is held by a supposition
that a loan has been granted for the cultivation of the land by
the original issue; and I think that this Bill is very desirable
for establishing the principle that some arrangement
should be made by which the permanent improvement
of the soil should be effected.—( Hear, hear.)
Can you deny that on the vast face of the surface of Ireland
there is room for improvement to be effected by labour? Can
you deny that in a vast portion of that country there is not a
superabundance of labour wanting a market ? Those are the
circumstances under which I ask you to give security for
labour. The Noble Lord sitting at the table had referred to
the security given in England by lease, and also by custom
which was recognised in the courts of law for compensation
for improvements effected without even asking the leave of the
landlord. In certain parts of the country it was well known
that the custom of the country entitled the tenant to claim
compensation for having manured so many acres on the surface
of the land. That custom is held as good in the courts of law.
—ollear, hear.) Then, again, in the case of drainage in the
greater portion of England. Where a large quantity of
drainage is necessary them is no more common system of
drainage than to drain with pollard wood. This is not a per-
manent drainage; it may stand for twenty years, yet,
when ejected from the land, the tenant can come
upon the landlord for compensation, and this by
the custom of the country is acknowledged and acted on
in the courts of law. That is the law and the custom
of England ; and I a.ls you to apply the same law in Ireland
that is thus acknowledged and acted on in England. That is
all we ask be: this Bill, merely to allow the tenant compensa-
tion for the improvementi he may have effected. What are
the apprehensions which are conjured up by this Bill? The
apprehensions are that the Irish tenants shall, out of their own
pockets, and at their own expense, lay out a fearful and alarm-
ing amount of money for the improvement of the properties of
their employers. This is the apprehension which we are told
to guard against. I think that apprehension is in itself most
unfounded, for I have no doubt that the tenant will outlay
out his capital indiscreetly or improvidently, or unskilfully in
Ireland, however he may do so in England, where he is pro-
tected by the drainage he has wade.
Lord BEAUMONT said that if the custom of the country
were allowed, still it was left to arbitration what amount the
land ought to pay, but it ought also to be remembered, that
with regard to drainage, it would only be allowed for two
years, and with regard to dust, one year.
Lord STANLEY—I know this, that without the consent
of the landlord certain improvements may be made, and the
tenant when removing from the land, can require the outlay
which he has expended in drainage, without the consent of the
landlord. Surely, if this law be good for England, it may
with safety be applied in Ireland also. But the tenant has no
right in Ireland to apply absolutely his labour or capital to the
improvements of his land, without in.the first place consulting
the wishes of his landlord. He is bound by the terms of the
Act to cioomunicate to his landlord his intention to begin
those improvements, and with that view he is bound to obtain
from the Government a form of application with instructions as
to the oroper course to be pursued. He is compelled to sub-
mit that proposal to hislandlord, and for greater security, and
in order that the landlord should know it, the Commis-
sioner is compelled to serve another notice on the landlord, and
then the landlord may, if he elsoses, object to the undertaking.
And now with regard to this question, and it is an open ques-
tion, whether the landlord may be permitted to place his veto
on the proceedings, and, for my own part, in the present state
of Ireland, I do not think that he ought to be allowed to
pla:e his veto on the proceedings. Ido not conceal my opi.
nion. I think that if this is allowed it will be a serious detri-
ment to the efficiency of the measure. It has been . objected
that there should be any compulsory proceeding between the
landlords and tenants, and it has been argued that a voluntary
agreement would be the better system. I think .that
it is an important feature in • this measure
that there should be one registry office for the whole of Ire-
land ; but, so far from that being a constituent principle in the
measure, if it be objected to, by the House, Ihave no desire to
adhere to it. I think that the whole principle of the Bill, if
carried out, will increase the letting value of the estates. It
has been said by a Noble Lord ( Lord Londonderry) that drain-
ing is going on on scientific principles in many parts of Ireland,
and that it we only leave. them alone they will do exceedingly
well.—( /leer, hear.) On a well-managed estate that may do,
but, on the other hand, it is likely to perpetuate the present
miserable state of Ireland, and hinder improvements which are
so much required from being carried into effect. It has
been said . that the landlord has no means of knowing
whether the work is done; but there is a provision in this
Bill by which the landlord or his agent has power to see the
work in every case in process of being done. How can we
secure that this compensation will be awarded? It has been
said, secure is the tenant .a long lease, or give him a fixity of
tenure. 'Sow, that is what the Legislature c +mot do. A good
deal has be'n said about the infringement of the rights of pro-
perty, and yet you say, secure to the tenant a long lease, or
fixity of tenure—a thiag which it was not in the
power of Parliament to do, and an interference which he
repudiated on the part of the Government altogether. What
we do is this. We will not interfere between the landlord
and the tenant ; give him a long or a short lease as you
will, but if he lays out money upon the land, by which its
value may be increased, you are not to take advantage of his
time, labour, or capital, and he, being a tenant at will, turn
him out without giving him some compensation for the im-
provement he has made.—(Hear, lo ar. ) The question
then is, who shall decide the amount of this compensation ?
If you leave it to the landlord, it is quite clear he would have
an undue advantage over his tenant. You must then have
some disinterested person to go between the landlord and tenant
to award it. Some may ask why not let them go to a court of
justice ? But, my Lords, in many cases a great proportion of
these improvements are ola trivial character in point of ex-
pense, and a litigious, angry, or prejudiced landlord might
drive his tenant to so much trouble and expense as to render
the compensation absolutely nugatory to the tenant. We de-
sire therefore to establish a cheap and speedy tribunal for the
adjustment of these questions, and in establishing such a tri-
bunal we reduce as much as possible the discretionary power to
be given to the presiding barrister. We lay down the
principle which shaU guide him, and the arbi:rator will
thus have little to.. decide except the fact of the
time when the improvement was undertaken, the amount of
outlay, and number of years which has expired since the outlay
was commenced. We propose that neither the landlord nor
the tenant shall be subject to any expense in going to this tri-
bunal, and the effect of this will be to secure an impartial and
unprejudiced arbitration. Can you expect to get a more im-
partial decision in any other way? Can you obtain the same
advantage of impartiality by referring the question to a jury or
the revising barrister? The public may complain of the ex-
pense thrown upon them, bat the mode of adjustment proposed
by the Government is the cheapest and the best that can be
devised for securing the interests of the landlord and the tenant.
But if you think, after due inquiry, that a reference to a jury
or an arbitration is more satisfactory, then in the name of God
adopt either of these proposals, but whichever you choose de-
fine the principles upon which the compensation shall be
awarded. I think it is hardly necessary for me to detain
your Lordships upon the importance of inducing landlords to
encourage and advise their tenants to lay out capital in the im-
provement of the land they occupy ; but I may here remark,
that while all admit the policy and importance of taking steps
of this nature, you one and all oppose a practical measure
brought forward for securing compensation for the improve-
ments. The benefit and importance of the suggestions made
by the Commissioners are generally admitted ; but when a
practical measure is proposed for carrying them out you feel
called upon to oppose it. Well, then, 1 ask you, under these
'circumstances, to go into Committee, and in doing so to bear
in mind the state of Ireland, apart from the state of England
and Scotland ; and I ask you to bear in mind the inability of a
great portion of the landed proprietary of freland to contribute
towards the .improvement of the land, and the great importance
of encouraging the tenant to make these improvements
by giving them that compensation in Ireland which custom
'gives to the tenant in England. Do not let the people of
Ireland have cause to say the House of Lords is studious to
provide for the interests of their own body, but have no con-
sideration or regard for the interest of the occupiers of the
land. Many Acts of Parliament have been passed. which have
received the sanction of your Lordships, for enabling the
tenant for life who may be advanced in years to recover from
his successor compensation for the money be may have laid out
in improving the property, and I ask your Lordships to compare
this with that of 'the landlord and tenant who has no lease,
and point out to me the difference between the two cases.
'I hat is all that we call upon the landlords of Ireland to do. Let
them take whatever precautions they like to secure that the
improvements shall be real; but secure to the tenant of Ire-
land that he shall haie the same remuneration which you have
secured to yourselves and to persons in your own position. In
making this proposition we have not taken the opinions of men
of any party, or of persons; in anywise interested. We have
taken the opinion of men of the highest character and the
g.eatest experience—men separated from each other by party
and local interests--we should deserve the want of confidence
which our conduct would produce, and would be responsible for
the consequences.—( Hear, hear.) I do not call upon your
Lordships and Parliament to agree to this Bill at once in all
its details. But Id) say that if your Lordships reject the Bill
without sending it to a committee, without fully examining all
its details, we shall not be responsible for the consequences.
The Earl of ESSEX put a question to the Noble Lord re-
lating to the 10th clause.
Lord STANLEY said that it would be for the Committee
to report upon that clause as well as upon every other. •
In answer to a question from the Earl of RODEN,
Lord
_STANLEY said that the Commissioners had not been
unanimous in the recommendation that the adpeal to the Goe
vernment Commissioners should be final.
'

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY (amidst loud cries of
Order, order,") read an extract from the report of the Com-
missioners, in which an appeal to the assistant barristers was
recommended.