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

flip SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE' 25, 1845

Noble Lord opposite regarding certain events which had lately
taken place in the island of Madeira. He had been induced to
brine- this question before their Lordships from a strong felling
of the great injustice of the ease. The sufferer had still teen
unable to obtain redress for the injury which had been done to
him, and the same system of persecution was still practised to-
wards a most respectable medical man in the island of
Madeira, a Scotchman by birth and a Presbyterian by
faith, This gentleman had resided for a long time
in the island, and had obtained the respect of all who knew him.
He was a gentleman of great prudence, of sound judgment,
and, he might say, of moderation in his views, notwithstanding
that he had exposed himself to the persecution of some of the
authorities in the island. The Noble Lord then detailed with
great minuteness the course of proceeding which Dr. Kalley
pursued after his imprisonment. Having appealed in vain to
the superior tribunals at Lisbon, he was liberated on the Ist of
January, 1844, after the remonstrances of Lord Howard. In
May, Dr. Kalley wrote to Lord Aberdeen of the injuries
he had experienced, and it was not till the 12th of
January following that he learned that on the 7th of
December previous his case had been decided against him.
Besides the woman Maria Joacquina, whose case he had
already mentioned, twenty-two other inhabitants of the island
were similarly persecuted for apostacy. and a large body of
men, headed by the British Conservator, sent to exterminate
those who professed doctrines condemned by the Catholics.
These facts were not asserted alone by the sufferers or repre-
sented by those aggrieved, but corroborated by a friend of his
( Lord Breadalbane's), and their truth could not be doubted.
He would ask his Noble Friend what this treaty was for, if it
were not to permit British subjects to worship in their own
dwelling-houses, and to celebrate their religions rites without
any interruption whatever? He should he happy to hear from
his Noble Friend what rights and privileges British subjects
possessed in the isle of Nladeria, after the treatment which
Dr. Kalley had received at the hands of the Portuguese
Government

Lord ABERDEEN said, although the Noble Lord had read
the Portuguese treaty once, he would have done well to have
read it again. The treaty was protective for Portuguese sub-
jects, and at the same time gave them no power of aggression.
Judging of Dr. Kalley, who was a Presbyterian, from the pro-
ceedings of his fellow-labourers in this country, he suspected
that the gentleman did not always indulge in very select lan-
guage with regard to the religion of the State—the Boman Ca-
tholic religion. He was in the habit of preaching in the Por-
tuguese language, and however much the natives might benefit
by his predications, he thought his countrymen did not derive
much satisfaction from them. The real object of the privileges
mutually granted were by the treaty of 1810 declared as fol-
lows :—That British subjects should have free permission to
enjoy their own forms of religious worship as freely as the
natives, with the exception that their chapels should
be on the exterior like private houses and without
bells.' This practice existed to the present day. It
would be recollected that it was only last year that all the
Acts existing against the privileges of Roman Catholics were
repealed even in this country. It was only as recent as the
time of Queen Anne that it was felony by the law for converting
a Prctestant to Roman Catholicism. And any Portuguese
seeing this enactment would naturally think he was entitled to
reciprocate. In Portugal, however, there had been no in-
stance of any person having been put to death for religious prin-
ciples since the time of Martin Gonsalvez. As far as the pri-
vileges of British subjects under the treaty were concerned,
they were intact, and would be resolutely maintained, and
although Dr, Kalley, in the system of proselytism which he
had been pursuing, had acted contrary to law, yet, perhaps, he
was not punishable to the extent which it had been originally
intended to apply. The authorities had acted prematurely and
unwisely. In consequence of the irregular proceedings of the
authorities in incarcerating him, he (Lord Aberdeen) had
made a summary of the loss which he had sustained, and the
remuneration which he ought to receive. The amount had
been abrayed by the Portuguese Government, and had been
agreed to, but before the payment of the sum, Dr. Kalley
removed to Lisbon. But as he subsequently wished to return
to Madeira, he said he would give up all claims to any compen-
sation from the Portuguese Government, if they would allow
him to return. He had authorised her Majesty's Minister at
Lisbon to consent to this proposition, if it coincided with the
views of the Portuguese Government. The matter had been
arranged, and he believed Dr. Kalley was now residmg in
Madeira, though he trusted he was not now pursuing the sys-
tem of proselytism, and preaching in the Portuguese language,
which had been so offensive to the authorities.
Lord BROUGHAM considered that it was a new principle
in the law of nations, that a person who was prosecuted by the
Government, and whose sentence was afterwards reversed,
should receive compensation from the Government of this
county. He was of opinion that he had no right to com-
pensation.
The Marquis of SALISBURY and Lord Bitaumowr rose
together.
Lord BEAUMONT said he was desirous of offering a few
remarks. . _ _

The Marquis of SALISBURY—There is no motion before
the House. _

Lord BEAUMONT—Then I shall make a motion. He
rose to make one remark. He must say that he regrettted as
distinctly as his Noble Friend behind him (the Marquis of
Breadalbane) the intolerance that prevailed in Portugal, and
in some other countries on the continent, regarding religious
discussion, but he could not help reminding the Noble Earl
(the Earl of Aberdeen) and the Noble Marquis of the great
mischief caused by the missionaries sent out to those countries
by Bible and other societies. In this country there were socie-
ties possessing enormous wealth, who employed men of great
talent and zeal for the purpose of making proselytes of persons,
the religion of whose country was Roman Catholic, to their
own faith. This was well known abroad, and those mission-
aries were directed not to lose any opportunity of gaining
over to their opinions those whom they are sent amongst. The
understanding in treaties was that these persons should merely
preach to their fellow countrymen, and not interfere with the
religion of its natives. Therefore, if the objects of these socie-
ties were carried out, they were carried out in direct opposition
to the principle and understanding of the treaties, so that when
any of these persons were taken up by the authorities, they
could not claim the protection of the treaties, because they did
not refer to the case of proselytism. He had heard many com-
plaints of these missionaries from persons in a high position.
He would, therefore, suggest the adoption of what had been
partially recommended by the Noble Earl, namely, to
erase from their own statutes, from their own practice, from
their own laws, all that might savour of that intolerance which
they were now condemning in other nations. The work was
commenced last year, and if Noble Lords had read the volume
in relation to this subject, as he had done, they would have
found that there were many statutes which were a disgrace to
the Legislature. He would conclude by putting this question to
the Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack, whethe , before
that evening closed, he intended to bring in the measure sug-
gested in the volume to which he had alluded?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had never heard of a
question being put in the shape of amendment when there was
another amendment before the House.—(Laughter.)
Lord BEAUMONT—I then move for the correspondence
between the Foreign-office and the Portuguese authorities.

The Bishop of SALISBURY wished to correct a misstate-
ment of the Noble Lord ( Lord Beaumont) with respect to the
Missionaries of the Bible Society, and of the Society for the Pro-
pagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. He had fallen into an
error, and he wished to inform him that the Bible Society
was not in the habit of sending missionaries into any foreign
countries professing the Roman Catholic faith, and that the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel confined their mis-
sionaries to the colonies and foreign dependencies of her Ala-

jesty.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE was afraid that the ex-
planation of the Noble Earl would not be satisfactory to the
religious people of this country—they would not be satisfied to
hear that Dr. Kalley would be permitted to return to Ma-
deira—to a country where he had committed no offence, except
propaitating his own religion. His answer was not satisfactory
to him, nor was it satisfactory that they had laws
in the Statute Book equally as persecuting as those
of the Portuguese Government. He maintained that
that was no answer to the question he had asked. He would
also add that the members of the Free Church of Scotland
would stand competition with the members of the Established
Church of England ; they were liberal in their sentiments,
they were friendly to other churches, and had made noble
sacrifices in the cause of religion.
Lord BEAUIIONT said he should withdraw his motion.

The Earl of ABERDEEN wished to say a few words in
reference to the remarks about compensation to Dr. Kalley.

He was illegally imprisoned for five months in opposition to
law, the treaty, and to the Government, and although he was
well treated It was yet thought that it furnished a fur case for
compensation, which would have been given to him had he not
objected to receive it, and expressed a desire to return to
Madeira.
The subject than dropped.
TENANTS' COMPENSATION BILL.

The Earl of SALISBURY said, as an itTiortant discussion
was aoout to take place, he must take the liberty of asking
the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, before it com-
menced, a question with resp.et to this Bill which contained a
prin'dple of cornpuhion, on landlords, with which he, for one,
could not agree. He wished to know whether, if he withdrew
his opposition to the measure, that the compulsory clauses
would he withdrawn ?
Lord STANLEY said the question resolved itself into
the, whether by assenting to the second reading of the Bill, the
Noble Lord committed himself to support the compulsory
clauses of the Bill in its future stages. He did not hesitate for
a moment to say that he conceived no Noble Lord would be so
committed. He conceived, however, that, in assenting to the

would insist on bringing it forward. He did not
think that the Noble Lord, after that paper had been read, -;
would present this measure in its present state to the House.
The Noble Lord did net say it was his 1311, but he certainly did
introduce it in a tong and eloquent and able speech, but that
speech did not convince his (Lord London lorry's) mind that
anything could be achieved by this most extraordinary mea-
sure. Why, one clause is the Bill gave the Commissioner is
Dublin power, not only to decide to every case that might
occur, but gave him also the power of ina.cting in some in-
stances a fine of 201. upon the landlord.—( Hear, hear.) What
was this if not subjectin4 the landlord to the power of this
gentleman? He did not conceive that this measure was at all
required in Ireland—at least, in the north of Ireland—and he
should, with their Lordships' permission, just read the " rights"
of the tenants in that part of the country. The Noble Mar-
quis then read a paper which stated that while the tenants or
their descendants conducted themselves properly, and paid
their rents, they should never be disturbed in their possessions.
This stimulated their industry, and caused them to improve
their farms, and what more did the measure before their
Lordships require ? In order to test the working of this
tenant right, he should only have asked the Noble Lord (Lord
Stanley) to examine into the circumstances- of those tenants,
to look at the improvements effected by them. He should
like to know how thi were to act with rega'd to their leases
under this Bill. What they were to do with them ?—( Hear. )
If new conditions were imposed upon the landlords these leases
could be of no use. Why then, without any necessity, entail
new arrangements upon landlords and tenants who were now
;lying happily enough together. It was quite a mistake to sup-
pose that compensation was what the tenants required in Ire-
land. What the tenants really required was security for their
tenures. They wanted something to stimulate their exertions.
Again it was a mistake to suppose that security to tenure was
the same with fixity of tenure. Fixity of tenure implied a pro-
prietary right, but security to tenure did no such thing. The
one was mischievous ; the other, well-regulated, had quite the
opposite tendency. On this particular point he should ask the
House to turn its attention to the evidence given before Parlia-
menton the subject. The Noble Lord then read an extract
from the evidence taken before the House to support the opi-
nion
he had advanced. His own opinion was that the
improvements in Ireland were great, and that if Go-
vernment left them to their own resources, they would
be still greater. The Bill introduced by the Noble Lord was
disapproved of by every Noble Lord connected with Ireland
(with the exception he believed of two) who had seen it. It
was disapproved of in the other House of Parliament by Mr.
Sharman Crawford, and in fact, it was disapproved of univer-
sally by every one connected with Ireland. That was the
actual state of opinion on the subject, and yet the Noble Lord
pressed forward this measure upon the House.—( Hear, hear.)
He had stated his own opinion upon this most obnoxious Bill,
he was supported in that opinion by other Noble Lords inte-
rested in the welfare of Ireland, but the power of Government
was so great that he had but little expectation of their being
able to stop its progress. He would now read the declaration
to which he had referred in the course of his remarks, and he
trusted that the sentiments contained therein would have their
due effect upon the Members of the Government. The Noble
Lord then read the declaration, which stated that they disap-
proved of the Bill introduced into Parliament, and while they
admitted the principle that the tenant was justly entitled to
compensation for all actual, bona fide improvements—( Hear)
—they stated that they conceived the tendency of the
measure as destructive to the rights of property
and as injurious its its operation, and they hoped the Govern-
ment would not persevere with it. And (continued the Noble
Marquis, emphatically) there are thirty-six signatures of your
Lordships belonging to Ireland attached to it. He had now
said all he intended to say on the subject. He had done his
duty in that House, and he had done his duty to his tenants in
Ireland, as his forefathers had done before him, and he could
not, therefore, concede the right or the necessity of any appeal
to a resident Commissioner in Ireland.
__

which the various clauses would be reconsidered. At the same
time he did think that the Bill, even as it stood, contained se.-
verai provisions which should not only have the effect of law
in Ireland, but which should also be enforced in Scotland and
in England.—( Hear, hear. ) It was a Bdl rounded upon jus-
tice and fairness, and so far from setting the tenant against
the landlord, it would render he position of each still more
,a.tisfactory.—( Hear.) He would not detain the House fur-
ther, and would not have done so even now, but for the obser-
vations of the Noble Marquis who had just left the House, but
to whom he would say that he hoped not only to see this mea-
sure carried for Ireland, but also a similar one for England and
Scotland. —( Hear.)
Lord MONTEAGLE said he would occupy the House but
a very few minutes. He was ready to admit that the present
position of the tenantry of Ireland was such as demanded Par-
liamentary interference. He was ready to admit that there
was a vast mass of the tenant population in Ireland in very
great distress, and even destitution; but, admitting all this, he
would ask, did this Bill propose a remedy for the mischiefs
complained of? He had heard reasons adduced for sending
the Bill to a Committee; but, in his opinion, the very same
reasons had been given for not adopting that course.—( Hear,
and a laugh.) Not only was this Bill not in consonance with
the principles of the law, but it would not even be tolerated in
l'ngland. Thus much for the landlord. He would now a•l-
-dress a few words in reference to the tenant, and he spoke
under correction of the Noble Lord at the head of the Com-
mission in Ireland. There was a great spirit of im-
provement now afloat in that country.—( Hear. ) And of all
countries in the world where the principle of agricultural
improvement could be eff.,cted by chemical and scientific in-
ventions, Ireland was the most adapted for the experiment ; but
this Bill could go far to check and impede that improvement
already commenced by these means there.—( Hear, hear. )
Ireland was divided into small parcels of land called, by cour-
tesy, " farms"' in that country, but which would here require
a new name to be invented for them. Drainage was pi-, posed
to be carried on in one of these parcels, and the water was to
be drawn off and collected; but where was it to go? Where
was the water to flow ? or, into what channel was it to be di-
rected ? The proposition was an absurdity, and affecting to
encourage, would be the very means of preventing an effi-
cient system of drainage. At present a good feeling was spring-
ing up between landlords and tenants in Ireland for the purpose
of effecting agricultural improvements on the estates.
Lord STANLEY—This Bill will not interfere with them.

second reading, the Hulse recognised the principle that it was
expedient to secure by legislative enactments compensation to
tenants for improvements which they had made of a permanent
cl:a-aster at their own expense, by which they added value to
the estate, and for which sutlicieni time hal hot ail sed at the
time of their leaving to give them fully those advantages
which they looked forward to in making such improvements
at their own expense. The question of the right of the land-
lord to exercise his right to prevent such improvements when
he thought it necessary to do so, was quite open to discussion
in the Select Committee. Those who were not satisfied with
the Bill might reject it on the third reading.
The Marquis of SALISBURY said, under those circumstances,
he should not press any opposition to the second reading.
Lord BROLICI HAM said as that was the last day fur pre-
senting petitions against certain Bills, he should merely pre-
sent those with which he was intrusted, without opening them,
one of which was from Lord Hastings, and another from Mr.
Spooner, and would simply move that they be referred to the
Railway Committees on the Bills to which they related. He
also moved the appointment of a Committee to confer wish
the Committee of the House of Commons with respect to the
railway businessbefore their Lordships.
The motlin was then agreed to.
Lord STANLEY then moved the second reading of the
Tenants' Compensation Bill.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY objected to the
measure, as it would endow tenants wi h powers with which
they ought not to be intrusted. He considered that landlords
should maintain the same influence over their tenants as at
present. For a tenant to be allowed to make his application
to the Commissioner at Dublin without the consent of his land-
lord would he most injurious. He admitted that the report nut of
which this Bill emanated contained very valuable iHformati n.
He believed that the Commission did not owe its origin to the
parties who had brought the Bill forward. He rather thouglot
it originated with the great disturber of Ireland, and that to
him alone was it indeb'ed for its existence. He thought,
also, that the labours of the Commissioners had been con-
ducted with great rapidity. They only remained for a few
hours in one place, unless where they were obliged to examine
witnesses from a distance, and he therefore trusted that no
Parliament would legislate on that report. He would ask if
the Commission itself approved of the Bill now brought for-
ward? If it did, then the House might be inclined to give
credit to it, but if certain of the Commissioners
told them that they could not approve of the machinery of the
Bill, and if they added that the framers of the measure had de-
parted from their recommendation, why then it appeared to
him that every individual in that House had a right to express
his opinion fairly and honestly. This was not a question of
party. It was simply a question between the landlord and his
tenant. The Bill was defective in another particular. for even
what might be applicable to one part of Ireland would not be
appli: able to another. He could not speak, indeed, of that
pot of Ireland in which he had never been, but he would not
hesitate to give a conscientious opinion as to its effects on that
p
oaroristittlyoi
of ms piftsohisiiiesesch vsioouopun a
nset.
Peers
rys Thedwwe factdeclaration icetlhraewathi which he was perfectly conversant;
and he did not hesitate to say that the results there would be
opposedwasmn s notorious,igtnoed
thisbym 3,t6ha
measure,
rteth,hea,
nmgdr ehtaeot
heldtmh aa
n
t
effect, and when the House examined that paper, he did
not think it could :vossibly be that the Secretary of state

After a few words from Lord GOSPORT, which were
almost inaudible in the grelery, but which we understood sug-
gested the propriety of referring the measure to a Committee
up stairs,
Lord STANLEY said that he had at all times stated his
anxiety that the details should be fully discussed in the Select
Committee by those Noble Lords who were connected with
Ireland. But he was not prepared to withdraw the Bill; on
the contrary, he was prepared, if necessary, to defend its every
principle. He thought, however, it might be possible to avoid
any lengthened debate en the question, if it were untie rstorid
that the measure should now be read a second time, the details
considered in Committee, and the discussion take place on the
third reading,
The Earl of WICKLOW was fully convinced that the prin-
ciple contained in the Bill was a good one, and it appeared to
him that the Bill very properly made it a compulsory principle.
Until this Bill was introduced, he confessed he did not think
that any man was of opinion that the principle ought to be
otherwise than compulsory, for what was the object of ap-
pointing the late late Landlord and Tenant Commission ?
Their Lordships would no doubt recollect that a Bill, contain-
ing a similar principle, was introduced into the Howe of Com-
mons some two or three years ago by a Gentleman connected
with the north of Treland. That Bill was withdrawn upon
the understanding that a commission should be appointed to
investigate the matter, thereby indicating that the commission
was to inquire and advise upon the host mode of granting com-
pensation to tenants without the consent of their landlords.
Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill contained precisely that principle,
with almost all the exceptions and exemptions to be found
in the Bill now introduced by Government. It contained one
principle,however, which he was happy to say was not to be met
with in the present measure. The former Bill gave tenants
power to undertake works and improvements upon the land
without giving aay previous notice of their intention so to do
to their landlords. Now, in this respect the present Bill was a
great improvement upon the first, for it required that previous
to arty works being undertaken a notice should be given to the
landlord, end an inquiry instituted as to the necessity for them
and their probable expense. The only question then for them
to consider was this. Was the machinery of the Bill sufficient
to attain the object it had in view? For his fart he thought
the appointment of a local commission in Dublin was a con-
siderable improvement upon the suggestion, and he might here
remark that it was only on that point that the Bill differed f, om
the recommendation of the Commissioners. It had been said that
the principle of the Bill was a revolution of the rights of pro-
perty. and he entirely agreed with those who entertained such
an opinion. He admitted that in this country the principle
wooed not be tolerated for one moment, but in the present
peculiar state of Ireland he thought something of the kind was
absolutely and indispensably necessary.—( Hear, hear. ) In
that country improvement could not be made on the land, be-
cause there were cases in operation to prevent it, which could
only be removed by legislaeive interference. The countr was
fertile beyond salsa ny person who was unacqtainted with it
might expect, and yet, in the midst of all this fertility, the land
was uncultivated and lying waste, while ground that could pro-
duce five fold more than it ditl, was in a most uncultivated
state. What was the cause of this? Why the cause was that
the landlord was either not willing, or the tenant was not able
to effect an improvement. The landlord would not or could
not make an attempt at improvement, and se it was pretty cer-
tain the tenant was nut able to do so, he should sit down re-
peating his conviction that Government had very properly come
forward with a measure well calculated to remedy this sad state
of things.—( Hear.)
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said he had now heard
for the first time what was the object of Government in ap-
pointing the late Commission. It was sent to Ireland, after Mr.
Sharman Crawford's Bill had been disposed of, to see if it could
not discover some mode for giving compensation to tenants.
The Earl of WICKLOW remarked that he had had no
other authority for making that statment other than that of
the public papers.
The Marquia of CLANRICARDE was not aware that the
public prints had placed the same construction on the objeet
of the Commission as the Noble Earl had done ; but be that
as it might, he found nothing in the mandate of the Commis-
sion, which made; any allusion to the subject of compensation to
tenants. Nor did it say a word about the amelioration of the
law of landlord anti tenant ; but the Commission was simply
to ascertain whether the existing law could not be so altered
as to be calculated to encourage the cultivation of the soil and
extend a better system amongst agriculturists, as well as to
improve the relation between landlord and tenant in that part
of the United Kingdom called reland. Ile denied that the
principle of the Bill was to give compensation to the tenants
for work they might have executed upon the land, whereby
the owner in fee or the lessee was to derive a
permanent benefit. That was a principle which had been
much talked of, not only in Ireland, but in England and Scot-
land too, and it appeared to be generally admitted that some
amendment ought to be made in the law of landlord and tenant
at present exis•ing in -Great Britain. At all events, how-
ever, he would venture to assert that the opposition of the peo-
ple of Ireland to this measure would be withdrawn, if Govern-
ment would only consent to strike out one clau.e, the shortest,
he believed, in the whole Bill; namely, teause '4B, which
enacted that this Bill should extend only to Ireland. But if
such a measure as this were proposed fur England there would
be no end to the opposition which would be offered to it.
Well, then, it. was admitted that as the Bill was a violation of
the right principles of legislation and the rights of property, it
ought not to be applied to England, and he wanted to know
what the peculiar state of Ireland was, that rendered such a
measure as tile present necessary ? What was the peculiar
circumstances in the state of l.reland which made it necessary
for them to violate the ju,t principles of legislation and the
rights of property ? Of all the countries under the power of
Government, Ireland was the one in dealing with which they
ought to be most cautious not to commit a violation
of the right of property. The drift of Government, as dis-
played in their measures relating to Ireland, had hitherto been
to assimilate the laws of the two countries ; and if they intend
to maintain the union inviolate, they ought to show themselves
to be unvarying in that course of legislation. Ireland was better
now, in an agricultural pent of view, than it had ever been
before. t he tenantry were net so suspicious of their superiors;
as they were wont to be, while they evince': a stronger inclina-
tion to follow their landlords in the path of improvement. The
real cause of the existing evils of Ireland was, that nothing had
been dine to check pauperism. The population depending
upon the land was becoming greater and greater every
day ; and he, therefore, hoped the Legislature would
lose no time in taking the subject of pauper-
ism in Ireland into their most serious consideration.
He had seen by the public papers that the Prime Minister had
been reported to have said, that in the promotion of this mea-
sure higher motives tictultsd the parties to it than merely the
considerations of lanelord awl tenant. Well, he (the Maaquis
of Clanricarde) had assumed that such was the cane ; but if it
were, he would ask was not the Legislature doing all it could
to destroy the good feeling that now existed between landlord
and tenant in that country?
The Earl of WICKLOW begged to interrupt the Noble
Marquis for a moment. He (the Earl of Wicklow) was ready
to admit that great improvements had been going on lately in
Ireland in aericulture.—( Hear, hear.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR then proceeded to put the
question on the amendment, upon which
The Earl of FORTESCUE rose and said he did not think
he would be warranted in sitting there if he did not state it
was his intention to give his most cordial support to the general
principle of this Bill, without, at the same time, in any way
committing himself to the details of the Bill. It was well
known to every one in England and Scotland (though of the
latter country he could not speak from his own knowledge),
that no landlord in those crne] ies ever let a farm without
first seeing that all the buildings and offices were in proper
tenantable repair—( Hear)—or, if not, that he at least gave the
tenant such a term of his farm as enabled him to
do so. —( Hear, hear.) Many instances had occurred
under his own knowledge, of farmers having taken farms
worth a considerable sum, and to repair which the tenant laid
out considerable sums from time to time, but which, if the
landlord was called on to do, would cost him several hundreds
of pounds. Now, in such cases, he would ask what security
had the tenant, unless he had a lease?—( Hear, hear.) Ile
would be certain to be evicted either at the caprice of the
landlord, or at the expiration of his lease, if it should be e short
one.—( Hear, hear.) It was to remedy such grievances as this
that this Bill had been introduced, anti to g:ve the tenant a
compulsory power over the landlord to recover in such cases, and
therefore he fully approved of it, and was very glad that such
a Bill had been founded on that introduced by
again repeat, that
it should have his cordial support. —( Hear, hear.) In cates
where a good understandieg should happen to exist between
the landlord and tenant, the measure would he a dead letter ;
but under circumstances of a contrary nature he did think that
the tenant should have a compulsory power of protecting him-
self against the landlord.—( Hear.)
The Duke of RICHMOND said it would be impossible for
him to give his support to the second reading of this Bill, if he
had not heard from the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Co-
lonies that he intended to refer the Dill to a Committee, in

Lord MONTEAG LE felt assured it would stop all such at-
tempts ; there were systems net susceptible of compulsion, and
the interposition of Acts of Parliament, so far from stimulating,
too frequently checked exertion. Southey had describe Ke-
hama as capable of assumingnine characters at once ; but the
commission that had inquired into the, condition of the landlord
and tenant in Ireland had proposed that no commissioner should
undertake the duties of adjudicating the rights of property of
the whole of that country. A country of 20,000,000 of acres
was to be brought under the review of one commissioner ; to
such a provision he objected, and the Government at least
ought to be invested with some responsibility as to the conduct
and efficiency of its commissioner. He admitted mach might
be done for the Bill in Committee on its details, but would he
be discharging his duty if he sent it to Committee before he
saw any prospect of its being amended there ?—( Cheers.) He
for one would not advance any measure sub silentio, of whose
benefits he entertained a doubt. Disappointment and injustice
had been the chief sources of calamity to Ireland, and this Bill
would but excite hopes and fears in Ireland, the former never
to be realized, the latter unfortunately too-well grounded. The
only consolation perceptible in the Bill was the words " consoli-
dated fund," hence it appeared that all expenses created by the
working of the measure would fall upon England. He could
not imagine how any Noble Lord, cognisant of the state of Ire-
land and its existing condition, as respected the rights of land-
lord and tenant, could, doubting the efficiency of the Bill, give
his support to its second reading. Such a man might sleep
upon his pillow that night in peace, but he could not see how that
course was consistent with his duty either to himself or to the
country.—( Cheers. )
The Earl of DE VON did not ground his support of the pre-
sent measure upon the principle propounded by the Noble
Lord (Monteagle), who had just sat down, that it implied an
entire distrust of the Irish landlord, and he ;shouldbe reluctant
to appear as a supporter of the Bill pledged to such an opinion.
Although he was aware of what improvements might be ex-
pected from the Irish landlords, he also knew that there were
many others from whom no co-operation could be exiiected by
the tenant; but he concurred with the Noble Lord (Mont-
eagle) opposite, that entertaining the strong opinion he did, the
only course was to oppose the Bill. The selection of evidence
under the Committee was supposed tolhave been partial ; many
had said that being composed of five Irish landlords its recom-
mendation would favour that class ; again it had been said that
the interest of the landlord had been sacrificed to that of the
tenant ; he felt surprised at such conflicting accusations and
denied them both. No one would have introduced such a
measure from a theory of preconceived opinions, but from a
firm conviction of the benefits that it would entail upon Ireland.
One of the great objects of this Bill was to bring into opera-
tion the labour of the working classes of Ireland, as for, from
four to five menths in the year, the agricultural labourers of
that country were not employed. He beseeched their Lord-
ships, in discussing this Bill, to consider the great difference
bete een the condition of Ireland as compared with England.
In the fortner country there was a great deficiency of capital,
with a superabundance of labour, which did not exist in the
latter country, and hence a measure of this kind was necessary
to protect those who might make improvements in their land,
and to encourage them to greater exertions. Great allowance
should be made for the difference in the condition of the two
countries, and they should legislate accordingly. It would be
necessary for him to go into the large blue-book before him,
even at the risk of tiring their Lordships, in order to show the
exact condition of Ireland, and the necessity for the improve-
ments proposed in the measure under consideration. He denied
that the proposed Bill would interfere with the
landlords in making improvements on their estates. In his
opinion it would rather facilitate their opportunities than other-
wise. There were large tracts of land in Ireland which would
soon be brought into cultivation and made profitable to both
landlords and tenants, if this measut e were carried into a law.
The Commissioner's Report, so far front deprecating improve-
ments by landlords, expressed a strong opinion that the land.
lords should make every improvement they could in land, as far
as it vets practicable ; yet whatever the landlords might do to
this effect, the Commissioners were of opinion that much in
the way of improvement would still be left undone, and hence
it was, for the object of inducing the tenants to take up and
carry out such improvements, that the measure before the
House was recommended. The Noble Lord here read several
extracts from the report to the foregoing effect, com-
menting on them as he went along. Their Lord-
sh ps would recollect that a measure similar to this
in effect was introduced into the other House of Parliament by
Mr. S. Crawford, before the issuing of the Commission. That
was in 1835, and the measure was then supported by Mr.
Wyse and Mr. Lynch, two gentlemen, than whom better land-
lords did not exist in Ireland. The principle was therefore
not, new. Independent of this, lie might say, that it was based
upon the most carefully collected evidence. The number of
witnesses examined by the commissioners, in all, were 303.
Of these forty-seven were landlords ; 128 farmers ; the re-
mainder were unclased. Out of this number fifty-five consi-
dered the right way to protect the tenants was by giving them
leases ; while 146 decidedly gave it as their opinion that the
best mode of securing the tenant for the capital and labour he
might expend on his farm, would be by a system of compensa-
tion similar to that proposed in the present Bill. These 146
were independent of many others, who gave a more qualifies
opinion' in favour of this plan of comp nsation.
He would read extracts from the evidence of several of the
most important witnesses examined, to bear him out in the
statement he had made. The Noble Lord then read the ex-
tracts to which he referred, from the evidence of Mr. Sharman
Crawford, Mr. Man and Mr. Burnes; the former an exten-
sive landed proprietor in the north of Ireland, and the other
two intelligent farmers, their evidence being to the effect that
interfe ence between landlord and tenant on the subject of
compensation was absolutely necessary. The measure was one
which would secure both the property of the landlord and the
tenant—neither giving undue privileges to the one or to the
other. For many years there had existed a right, on the part
of the tenants in Irelandat to take away, at the expiration of
their leases, the trees which they had planted during their
tenantry. As the stumps were frequently left in the ground, it
deteriorated instead of improved. So that even at the present
moment the tenant might leave the land which he had occu-
pied in an Injured instead of an improved state—whereas, under
the 13:11, this would not be allowed, as compensation from his
landlord would be secured to him for the improvements which
he had effected. It was only right that a landlord should not
have the power of suddenly ejecting a tenant who had effected
improvements on the land at his own expense, without making
him that compensation to which he was entitled, and which, if
not afforded, might reduce him to a helpless state of poverty.
Then the impetus which would be given to the improvement of
the land under the security given to the tenant by the Bill
would call into use during at least five months of the
year, a great portion of the unemployed labour of Ireland.
Then the Bill would not interfere with the contracts between
landlords and tenants, only with those who would not enter into
any specific contracts with their tenants. He should like to
see contracts carried out to a greater extent than hitherto,
to see facilities afforded to those desirous of doing so, and that
means should be taken to have such contracts registered. Be-
sides, a tenant would feel greater ease when there was a fair un-
derstanding between him and his landlord. The Irish landlord
under the Bill would be placed in the voluntary position of an Eng-
lish landlord. if a landlord would not place the necessary out-
houses, &c., on the land which he let, and the tenant was
compelled to do so at his own expense, he considered that a
reas triable compensation should be secured to him by law, in
the event of his leaving the land before he hail derived suffi-
cient benefit from the outlay. He was, therefore, extremely
anxious that this Bill should be read a second time. When
it was in Committee, those minor alterations which Noble
Lords thought necessary, would, of course, be ma le.
Lord CA REW, who spoke in so low a tone that scarcely
a word he uttered reached the gallery, was understood to say
that he considered alterations by the tenants ought not to be
matte without the consent of the landlord, but believing that
tenants were, in many instances, entitled to compensation, he
should not, object to the second reading of the Bill.
Lord ESSEX said he was one of their Lordships who had
some property in Ireland, and that he should not support the
second reading of the Bill if improvements were to be made
without the consent of landowners, or if the compulsory clauses
were retained.

The Marquis of SALISBURY would vote for the second
reading, reserving to himself the full power of voting against
any of its provisions in a siture stage. A Noble Earl seemed
to avow that the Bill would be of no use, unless it contained
compulsory clauses. From this opinion he dissented, and
would hereafter express himself more fully on that head. If
his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies thought it
worth while to maintain the Bill without the compulsory
clause, he would support it, but otherwise he would be willing to
crush it on the second reading.
The Earl of RODEN would oppose the second reading of
the Bill, and would not support the principle of Government
interference between landlord and tenant. On behalf of the
tenantry of Ireland, as well as on behalf of the landed pro-
prietary, he would oppose the Bill on the second reading and
every other stage.
The Marquis of NORMANBY wished to say a few words
on the stib]ect of the Bill. He was one of those who was op-
posed to the appointment of the Commission, not that he
doub' et] the diligence of the Noble Earl, but, because he thought
it would raise expectations which could not be justified. He
thought it was better that the Government should have brought
in specific measures for the evils which existed in the landlord
and tenant system in Ireland, than such a sweeping and com-
prehensive measure. The Noble Earl ( Devon) had not ans-
wered any of the objections which had been urged against the
Bill, and seemed to doubt whether it was carrying out the sug-
gestions in the Report of the Commission. The Government
ought to take upon itself the responsibility of the disappoint-
ment which would be felt in Ireland from the failure of this
Bill. Should his Noble Friend (Lord Stanley) say that he
thought it probable no other measure could be brought forward
this session to remedy the evils which existed in the landlord
and tenant system in Ireland, he would vote for the seeond
reading. The position of the tenant in Ireland entitled
him to protection, and to that part of the Bill
he would give his unqualified support. The Bill
in its present shape was obviously impracticable, and
he thought it had better be deferred until the other measures
to which reference had been made were introduced. By
putting forward this Bill against the practical opinion of all
parts of Ireland, they would oppose the feelings of the whole of
the country. It was wholly with this desire that he had said
those few words, and he did hope that the Bill would be de-
ferred until the other Bills of which he had spoken should be
introduced.

Lord CAMPBELL said that the aw of England was de-