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

MOUS E OF LORDS, .I,,ne 24.

Their Lordships assembled shortly after Five o'clock this
evening.
Lent' CHARLEVILLE informed the House, that in con-
sequence of Lerd Gardnet's neglecting to attend his Commit-
tee, the consideration of the G' asgow Bridge project had been
postponed.
The Duke of RICHMOND observed that many of their
Lordships were not aware of the great inconvenience arising
both to public interest and private enterprise from such neg-
lect of duty as the N ible Lord (Gardner) had evinced.
He was sorry to perceive the disinclination on the part
of his Noble Friend to attend the duty imposed upon him
and should move that a substitute be appointed to sup-
ply the place of the ab,entee Member, and that Lord Gardner
be ordered to appear in his place in that House on Thurs-
day next, to explain the reasons of his non-attendance.
He, therefore, took the liberty of proposing to their Lordships
that the Select Committee be requested to recommend another
individual in his place that the parties may not be put to a
useless loss of time and expence, and that Lord Gardner be
requested to state in his place on Thursday next his reasons for
not attending the Committee.
Lord BROUGHAM considered that Lord Gardner must
have laboured under some misapprehension and did not intend
any disrespect to their Lordships. It was a mistake to sup-
p: se that the attendance of Noble Lords in that House was
voluntary, as every Peer ‘-as bound to attend, and the
precedentscompelling attendance were numerous, and a fine of
UP/. had in some eases been imposed. In one case a Peer was
fined because he did not attend when requested, and he was
committed to the Tower for refusing to pay it.
Lord CAMPBELL had lately searched the journals of
the House, in which he found innumerable instances
of the House compelling the attendance of Peers
not only for the service of the House but on
Committees. It also appeared that all Peers were compelled
not only to attend in their places when the role was called, but
they were not allowed to leave the House until it adjourned.—
(Laughter.) In the time of Charles I. they were net allowed
to leave the House until the debate was finished. He rejoiced
that the motion had been made.
The Duke of WELLINGTON had not the smallest doubt
that their Lordships had the power of enforcing the attend-
ance of Noble Lords, and that the Noble Lord hail not
attended the Committee this morning frernlmere inadvertence.
He thought it totally unnecessary to adopt any measures in
consequence.
The Marquis of CL AN RICA [IDE thought they should no
only consider the subject before the House, but with respect to
the great quantity of railway business before it. Those who
were in the habit of attending the Committees had a great and
onerous responsibility thrown upon them—( Hear, hear)—as
they were entrusted with great and important interests in con-
nexion with the railway schemes before them. He put it to
the House, whether .they ought no' to call upon those Peers
in the country who had taken out proxies, to attend and hear
their share in the additional labours thrown upon other Noble
Lords.

Lord BROUG lIAM said he intended to move that
their Lordships should consider what steps they ought to adopt
in consequence of the immense mass of railway business before
them. He was about to move that a Committee of the Howe
should communicate with the Commons' Committee on the
subject. If all their Lordships were to attend, it would be
utterly impossible to get through all the Railway Bills.
The LORD CHANCELLOR put the motion that Lord
Gardner be requested to attend in that House, on Thursday,
at five o'clock, to explain his reasons for not attending the
Committee.—Agr ed to.
ABERDEEN RAILWAY COMMITTEE.

A NOBLE Lott; said, as Chairman of the Committee, he
begged to report that it had adjourned until half-past two
o'clock to-morrow, in c-,nsequence of the non-attendance of
Lord Ormond.

Lord ORMOND said he• was out of town when the sum-
mons was left at his residence, and that he did not, in conse-
quence, receive it until it was too late to attend today.

COIIIION LAW PROCESS BILLS.

Lord CAMPBELL said, at the earnest request of those
for whose opinions he had a great respect, he had to lay two
Bills on the table of the House, from which he trusted the
public would derive great benefit.—(" Hear, hear," from Lord
Brougham.) If he had had only to consult his own ease and
comfort he would have washed his hands of these Bills, but
being charged with a public duty he felt hound to bring them
under the consideration of the House. Yet the public were very
nearly losing a very great benefit.—(" [fear, hear," from Lord
Brougham.) When this subject was last before their Lord-
ships the name of a respected friend of his (Mr. Sergeant
Murphy) was mentioned in connexion with it. He was sure
their Lordships would bear in mind that he said nothing dero-
gatory of that Learned Sergeant, or offensive to him ; on th 3
contrary, he must say that if he had been present he would
have been aware that what he said ought not to
have given him the slightest uneasiness.—( Hear, hear.)
A misapprehension prevailed in some quarters as to these
measures. It was supposed they would intrench upon the
jurisdiction of the Irish Courts, and prove prejudicial to the
profession of the law in Ireland, but he could assure their
Lordships that a greater mistake could hardly have been fallen
into. He hoped, however, upon a reconsideration of the
measure
:ItihnßatothpueorotoititohnAesr House, these misapprehensions would
vanish, and the Bill would meet with a better fate.
l
Mofagthrer.ml weait,harehishaNd ohbeleenagodeosLsleyarmniesd.
apprh LORDele7n
ded
T CHANCELLOR felt that he owed the Hon.
and Learned Sergeant some apology for an observation which
mhaadrkefdalltehnat
(flotmhesehißmillsownera eformeraware
occasion. He had re-
toa joke,"
that abyutatthe
time he made that remark he was sacrificedot
corres-
pondence had passed on the subject between the Noble and
Learned Lord and the Hon. and Learned Sergeant. He made
the remark, however, in perfect good humour, and with no
intention of woudding the feelings of the Hon. and Learned
Sergeant.
The Bills were then read a first time.
PROTESTANTISM IN MADEIRA.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE said, perhaps he might
putting a question to the
be penuited to take that opportunity of

2111 F, SUN, LONDON,

Noble Lord opposite regarding certain events which had lately •
taken place in the island of Madeira. lie had been induced to
bring this question before their Lordships from a strong feeling
of the great injustice of the case. The sufferer had still been
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. Kelley 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 apostasy, 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 religious rites without
any interruption whatever? He should be happy to hear fro.n
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 acid, 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. Kelley, 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 Roman 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. Kelley, 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. Kelley was now residing in
Madeira, though he trusted he was not now pursuing the sys-
tem of proselytism, and preaching in the Portuguese language,
which bad been so offensive to the authorities.
Lord BROUGHAM considered that it was a new principle
in the law of nation., 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 Beististowr rose
tovetlier.
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, rtgarding 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 gainieg
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. Therefor e, 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 ease of proselytism. He had beard 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 sac: ur of that intolerance which
they were now condemning in other nations. The work was
commenced last year, end if INkble 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 puttirg this question to
the Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack, whetl-e•, before
that evening closed, he intended to bring in the measure sug-
gested in the volume to which he had alluded?
'f he LORD CHANCELLOR said he had never heard of a
question being lut in the shape of amendment when there was
another amendment before the Huuse.—(Laughter.)
Lord BEAUNIONT—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-
palation 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 Ma-
jesty.
The Marquis of BRE ADALB.ANE 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
propa;sating 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
e-ould 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 BEAU NIONT said he should withdraw his motion.

,4 ...Al, •
The Earl."
of ABERDEEN wished to say a few words in
reference to the remarks about compensation to Dr. Kalley.
fle 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 fair 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 then dropped.
TENANTS' COMPENSATION BILL.

The Earl of SALISBURY said, as an important 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; 1 question with respect to this Bill which contained a
prinoiple of compulsion, 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
tit's, 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. Ho conceived, however, that, in assenting to the
second reading, the House recognised the principle that it was
expedient to secure by legislative enactments compensation to
tenants for improvements which they had made of a permanent
character at their own expense, by which they added value to
the estate, and for which sufficient time had hot elapsed 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 Marqnis:Of SALISBURY said, under these circumstances,
he should not press any opposition to the second reading.
Lord BROUGHAM said as that was the last day for 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 Bilk to which they related. He
also moved the appointment of a Committee to confer with
the Committee of the House of Commons with respect to the
railway businessbefore their Lordships. ,
The motion 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 with 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 be most injurious. He admitted that the report out of
which this Bill emanated contained very valuable information.
He believed that the Commission did not owe its origin to the
parties who had brought the Bill forward. He rather thought
it originated with the great disturber of Ireland, and that to
him alone was it indebted for its existence. He thought,
also, that the labours of the Commissioners bad been con-
ducted with great rapidity. They only remained for a few
most
mischievous.llrds,sthws
icohpnoeet
an
hours in one place, unless where they were obliged to examine
of
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
applicable to another. He could not speak, indeed, of that
part of Ireland in which he had never been, but he would not
hesitate to give a conscientious opinion as to its effects on that
part of the country with which he was perfectly conversant;
and he did not hesitate to say that the results there would be
d
Peers
dr
st
dT:hpweheoceesl
rsaHeifrbaaoolctuypti
:pwentoasesesdintghot examined
signed
dr thisitoh bu
eys
measure,
h3seta6ahet:oaurtf
per, theeatta
Secretary
rringi great
tha
:oteshitthat
italma-
joritydid
nutei nf e chistt,h

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 not say it was his Bill, but he certainly did
introduce it in a long and eloquent and able speech, hut that
speech did not convince his (Lord Londonderry's) mind that
anything could be achieved by this most extraordinary mea-
sure. Why, one clause in the Bill gave the Commissioner in
Dublin power, not only to decide in every case that might
occur, but gave him also the power of indicting in some in-
stances a fine of 201. upon the landlord.—( Hear, hear.) What
was this if not subjecting 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 ordi r to test the working of this
tenant right, he should only have asked the Noble Lord (Lord
Stanley) to examine into the circumstanees of those tenants,
to look at the improvements effeete Iby them. He should
like to know how they were to act with regard 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 landlorils and tenants who were now
living 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 theit exertions.
Again it was a mistake to suppose that security to tenure was
the same with fixity of tenure. Fixity of tenure implie.l a pro-
prietary right, but security to t-nure 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-
ment on the subject. The Noble Lord then read an extract
from the evidence taken before the House to support the opi-
nion he hail 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 wouid 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 in 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. _
___

After a few words from Lord GOSPORT, which were
almost inaudible in the gallery, 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 uncle rstood
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 ohj 'et 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 House of Com-
mons some two or three years ago by a Gentleman connected
with the north of freland. 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 best 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 soy 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 any works being undertaken a notice should be given to the
landlord, and an inquiry instituted as to the necessity for them
and their probable expense. The only question then for them
to con'ider was this. Wes the machinery of the Bill sufficient
to attain the object it had in view? For his ! art he thouelit
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, urn
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 ho entirely agreed with-those who entertained such
an opinion. He admitted that in this country the principle
wouid not be tolerated for one moment, but in the present
peculiar state of Irelend he thought something of the kind was
absolutely and indiseensably necessary.—( Hear, hear. ) In
that country improvement could not be made on the land, be-
ceuse here were cases in operation to prevent it, which could
only be removed by legisla.ive interference. The countr was
fertile beyond wha ny person who was unacquainted with it
might expect, and vet, 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 did, was in a most uncultivated
state. What was the cause of this? Why the cause was that
the landlord was either not sailing, or the tenant was not able
to effect an improvement. The landlord would not or could
not make an attempt at improvement, end as 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 corn,
forward with a measure well calculated to remedy this sad state
of things.—( Hear.)
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said he had now heaed
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
somemrlodlefLrOgW revingmar compensation to tenants.
remarked that he had had no
The
escoEvaerrl
of WICKLOW
other authority for making that statment other than that of
the public papers.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE was not aware that the
public prints had placed the same construction on the object
of the Commission as the Noble Earl had done ; but be that
as it might, he thund noshing in the mandate of the Commis-
sion, which made; any allusion to the subject of compensation to
tenant:. Nor did it say a word about the amelioration of the
law of landlord and tenant ; but the Commission was simply
to ascertain whether the ex'sting 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 sreland. He 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 existing in Great Britain. At all events, how-
ever, be 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 clause, the shortest,
he believed, in the whole Bill; namely, clause 28, which
enacted that this Bill should extend only to Ireland. But if
such a measure as this were proposed for England there would
he 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 tire present necessary ? What was the peculiar
circumstances in the state of Ireland which made it necessary
for them to violate the just 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 point of view, than it had ever been
before. lhe tenantry were not so suspicious of their superiors
as they were wont to be, while they evinced 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 done 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 hail seen by the public papers that the Prime Minister had
been reported to have said, that in the promotion of this mea-
.sur e higher motives actuated the parties to it than merely the
;considerations of landlord and tenant. Well, he (the Marquis
'of Clanricarde) hail assumed that such was the case ; 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 EnlanJ and Scotland (though of the
latter country he could not speak from his own knowledge),
that no landlord in those countries 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, hut 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 lead a lease?—( Hear, hear.) He
would be certain to be evicted either at the caprice of the
landlord, or at the expiration of his lease, if it should be a short
one.—( Hear, hear.) It was to remedy such grievances as this
that this Bill had been introduced, and to give '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 Mr. Sharman
Crawford in the other House, and• he would again repeat, that
it should have his cordial support.—( Hear, hear.) In cases
Where a good understanding should happen to exist between
the landlord and tenant, the measure would be 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 Bill to a Committee, in