HC Deb 11 February 1847 vol 89 cc1157-70
MR. S. CRAWFORD

rose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice, on the subject of landlords and tenants' rights in Ireland. He said, that the questions had been repeatedly raised in that House—What were the causes of the miserable condition of the population of Ireland? and, who were the parties responsible for that misery? These questions did not appear to have been either answered or understood in that House. He therefore desired to call the attention of the House to certain facts which, he trusted, would show how far the evils of Ireland were the result of the nature of the relationship between landlord and tenant, and how far the landed proprietors were responsible for those evils. If ever there was a time when it was necessary to make that inquiry, it was the present moment, when the people of Ireland were starving; when so much money had been paid by this country for their relief, and when so much more was wanted; when, at the same time, they found Irish landlords stating that the poor rates could not be paid, and attempting to throw off their responsibility when it was suggested to subject them to a proper poor law. It had given him great pain to see resolutions, signed by a leading Peer of Ireland (Lord Monteagle), in which the proposition for extending, even to the limited degree which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) proposed, to give outdoor relief to the poor of the country, was strongly reprobated; and still more, when he saw even the moderate proposal of appointing relieving officers was reprobated. It gave him the deepest pain to see those resolutions, and made him feel that there was a disposition in the landlords of Ireland to throw off the responsibility which ought to be imposed upon them. He therefore thought it quite right and proper that there should be an inquiry how far the evils of Ireland were owing to the mismanagement of the landed proprietors, in order that they might be made to undergo their proper responsibility. With respect to the present proprietors, he did not impute to them the origin of those evils; but he said that, although they did not originate those evils, they were responsible for the continuance of them. He did not think them equally blameable, but he maintained that they were equally responsible, because the person who inherited property inherited the responsibilities which attached to it; and if the former landed proprietors were the originators of those evils, it was right that the present proprietors should be responsible for the remedies. The first allegation in his resolution was— That it appears from the reports of various committees and commissions, that the system generally adopted in times past in the letting and management of landed property in Ireland, has been one of the main causes of the present distressed state of that country, and the disordered state of its social relations. The evidences of the truth of this proposition were so numerous in the various reports of committees and commissions, that his only difficuly was in making a selection. He should bring before the House only a few references to the evidence by which his allegation was supported, and he should do so as briefly as possible. The Land Commissioners referred to the confiscations and plantations, and showed the effects produced in Ireland. They said— The confiscations led in many instances to the possession of large tracts, by individuals whose more extensive estates in England made them regardless and neglectful of their properties in Ireland. They referred to the penal laws, the 40s. freehold franchise, and their effects; and they concluded these references with this remark:— Whatever difference of opinion may be put forward or entertained on other points, the testimony given is unfortunately too uniform in representing the unimproved state of extensive districts, the want of employment, and the consequent poverty and hardships under which a large portion of the agricultural population continually labour. Again, the Committee of 1830, after referring to the multiplied evils produced by the bad management of land, concluded thus:— Your Committee conceive it is the imperative duty of individuals, of the Government, and of the Legislature, to consider what means can be devised to diminish this mass of suffering, and, at the same time, to secure for the country a better economic condition, promoting a better management of estates, and regulating the arrangements between landlord and tenant on rational and useful principles. He begged to refer to another important evidence upon the subject of the misconduct of Irish landlords—namely, Mr. Leslie Foster. In his examination by the Committee of the Lords, in 1825, he was asked— Is it or is it not the practice of Irish landlords to build, repair, or drain?—They hardly ever do any of these things. Is this not one of the leading causes of the misery of the occupiers?—I think that the misery of the occupying Irish tenantry results from so many circumstances in the conduct of the landlords, that I should very inadequately express what I think if I were to select that one circumstance as one of much importance. It is a cause, so far as it operates; but I can hardly imagine a change in the system of immediate landlords extending merely to such particulars. Any view of their interests or their duties that would lead them to build and repair houses, would lead to so many more important duties, that I can scarcely contemplate that insulated correction. Again, Mr. Bicheno, in his evidence before the Committee of 1830, said— The distress which exists in Ireland appears to me to be the consequence of the bad relation between landlord and tenant. The landlords of England, and the landlords, I believe, of every other country, find it their interest to cultivate a good understanding with their tenantry; their consequence is derived from this good understanding; and that is done by the landlord treating the tenant with generosity when he is in distress, and by doing acts of kindness to him. I conceive that it is by this means the landlords of England uphold their consequence and dignity; but in Ireland there is no such feeling; all the landlord looks to there is the improvement of his income, and the quantity of rent he can abstract. These were strong proofs that the evils of Ireland had been produced by the mismanagement and injudicious conduct of Irish landed proprietors. What had been the consequence of the nature of the mode of letting land? In the first place, he found that the system of middlemen had been introduced by the landed proprietors. The landed proprietors complained of the consequences of having middlemen; but the fact was, that they had been wilfully introduced by the former proprietors with the intention of these middlemen subletting to poor tenants. If evil had been the consequence, the landed proprietors of the present day, although not the authors of the system, must take the consequence of it. The result of this system had been, the great subdivision of land; and then the subsequent system of consolidation which had been partially introduced, had aggravated the sufferings of the people by the clearing of lands. Then, again, the poor people were obliged to take land for their potato crop, on which they were dependent. The consequence of all these practices had been the increase of population, the non-improvement of the country, the non-employment of the people, low wages, which could not support men, bad houses, the people relying upon potatoes as their only food, and general disorder. Hence the people were "badly housed, badly fed, badly clothed, badly paid for their labour," and always close on the borders of starvation. It was a remarkable fact, too, that while the people of Ireland were nearly starving, the average exports of corn to this country were 2,500,000 quarters. Even in this melancholy season of starvation, it appeared from the Government returns, that in the first eleven months of 1846 the exports of grain to this country were 1,776,000 quarters. But the fact was, that the farmers were obliged to send off their corn to Liverpool and Scotland in order to get money to pay their rents. The quantity of produce which had been imported into Ireland by the Government, amounted to 180,000 quarters; but the Government could not stop the export of provisions to this country. Rent to the amount of 13,000,000l. was drawn from the people of Ireland, and yet all these things occurred. The rents were not returned to the people in the shape of profitable employment—the rents were collected, and the people left starving. The great principle of legislation hitherto with regard to landlord and tenant, was to give extreme power to the landlord for the collection of his rent. He begged to read an extract which he had taken from Mr. Nimmo's evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords. Being asked about the effect of severe distress, he answered— I conceive the principal cause of the distresses and unfortunate situation of the peasantry of Ireland, has arisen from the management of land, which could be carried on upon these (bad) principles only by keeping that power in existence. The same witness referred to the extraordinary powers of distress given by law, as the means of inducing landlords to accept insolvent tenants, and said— In conducting public works for Government in the counties of Cork and Kerry, he had the greatest difficulty to obtain the application of the money intended for the employment of the poor to their own uses, because the power of the landlord was so excessive that the peasant had no means of resisting that power. He added— With all the exertions I could make, I cannot but say that frequently, upon paying the persons employed in this way, we have had the drivers alongside of them to receive the money in the one hand as fast as we put it into the other. Mr. Nimmo also stated it to be a very general practice for the landlords only to give receipts on account of rent, and the tenant, therefore, never knew what claims might be against him. He (Mr. Crawford) begged next to quote an opinion from a higher quarter respecting the effects of the existing law as regarded landlord and tenant. The Marquess of Westmeath said that— He thought the misery of the occupying tenants arose in a great measure from the defective state of the law between landlord and tenant. Another witness, Mr. Wilson, said— I have known tenants distrained, and their stock, in three or four instances, impounded by five several claimants within the course of ten or fifteen days. The monster grievance under which Ireland laboured, was the uncertainty of tenure, and, consequently, the uncertainty of obtaining remuneration for the capital and labour which they might expend upon the land. As bearing upon this point, he begged leave to quote a passage from the Landlord and Tenant Commissioners' Report:— In the years 1835 and 1836, and again in 1843, Bills were presented to the House of Commons, of which the object was to secure for tenants compensation for any outlay which they might make of a permanent nature on their farms. We earnestly hope that the Legislature will be disposed to entertain a Bill of this nature, and to pass it into a law with as little delay as is consistent with a full discussion of its principles and details. We are convinced, that in the present state of feeling in Ireland, no single measure can be better calculated to allay discontent, and to promote substantial improvement throughout the country. The advantages which resulted from giving the tenant security for his capital and labour, were explained in the evidence of several influential gentlemen who were examined before the Landlord and Tenant Commission, and amongst others by Mr. Andrews, agent to the Marquess of Londonderry, and Mr. Hancock, the agent of Lord Lurgan. The latter witness alluded to the influence which tenant security had on the reclamation of land by poor tenants on Lord Lurgan's estate. He stated that those poor persons went on the waste land, trusting to the tenant right, and by their labour brought it into cultivation, thus bettering their own condition, and adding to the permanent improvement of the country. The cause usually assigned for the horrible condition of the population of Ireland, was the number of small holdings in that country; but, in his opinion, that was a fallacy. He would, for the purpose of comparison, select two counties of Ireland, one in the south and the other in the north, and nearly equal in size as regarded the number of acres, namely, Limerick and Down. The contrast furnished by these two counties was pregnant with instruction. The number of holdings in Down, of from one to five acres, was 13,753; whilst in Limerick the number was, of holdings of the same extent, 6,841. The number of holdings in Down, of from five to fifteen acres, was 11,991, and the number in Limerick was 6,840. The number of holdings from fifteen to thirty acres in Down was 3,865; in Limerick it was 3,700. The number of holdings above thirty acres in Down was 1,508; in Limerick it was 2,346. Those figures demonstrated that the acknowledged social inferiority of Limerick, as compared with Down, did not arise from the subdivision of land. The returns lately presented to the House relative to the presentments at baronial sessions in the various counties of Ireland, showed that in Limerick presentments had been made to the amount of 186,000l., whilst in Down the presentments had not exceeded 2,917l. Nothing could illustrate more forcibly the superior social condition of Down. To what was that attributable? Simply to the land in Down being held under the head landlord, with the security called tenant right. The people there felt perfectly confident that by the custom of the country they could never be dispossessed of their land without ample remuneration for every improvement they had made; and they also felt confident that they never would be dispossessed of it under any circumstances as long as they paid a fair rent; and the landlords of Down did not demand more than a fair rent. That was the happy condition of the county of Down. The landed proprietors of Down did their duty by improving the condition of the people, and giving their tenants a lien upon the land, and that was the cause of the prosperity of that county. By pursuing the same course in other parts of Ireland, they would be rendered equally prosperous. An opinion prevailed generally that it was desirable to do away with small holdings in Ireland; but if those views should be carried into effect, how would the labourer be able to emerge from his original station to a higher place in society? In Down a young man began as a labourer, and having, by industry and prudence, saved money enough to enable him to go upon a farm, he selected one of from five to fifty acres-few farms exceeded the latter number in extent—according to his means, in perfect security that, whatever capital and labour he might expend upon it, would not be lost to himself or his family. The nature of the tenant-right in Downshire was this—the tenant was secure that the landlord could not dispossess him of the land, without paying him the full value of what he might put into it. The tenant had also the power of selling his tenant-right in the event of his finding his landlord a solvent tenant to succeed him. It was not his intention to advocate one class of small holdings which prevailed to a great extent in Ireland—that of cottier tenants under middlemen. Under that system the occupying tenant had no security for his expenditure; the middleman was unable to give security, and the landlord could give none, on account of the middleman standing between him and the occupier. In the present condition of Ireland, the only mode in which the tenant could obtain security, was by passing a law to enable him to obtain the value of labour and capital expended upon the land from the person, be he who he might, who stood over him in the relation of landlord. The enactment of such a law would give the greatest possible impulse to improvement. It would also be necessary to abolish the system of joint-tenancy. It was impossible for the ingenuity of man to devise a system better calculated to impede improvement than that of joint-tenancy. By whom, then, was it contrived? By the landlords. They contrived that system for the very purpose of securing their rents, and giving themselves the least possible trouble. Most of the evils which afflicted Ireland—the want of employment—the absence of all attempts at improvement—might be traced to that unfortunate, and he might say wicked, system, adopted with respect to the letting and management of land in that country. It mattered not what Acts might be passed with respect to Ireland; they would be useless if tenant-right should not be established by law throughout the country. A poor law without it would be unavailing; but establish tenant-right concurrently with the enactment of a poor law, and the two measures would co-operate as a stimulus to improvement, and would prevent the confiscation of property which was now going on. The confiscation of landed property was to be apprehended, not from a poor law, but from the distressed condition of the country, which was the consequence of the present vicious system with respect to the letting of land. The best way to prevent confiscation, was to enable the people to better their condition. Observations were frequently made in that House upon the conduct of absentee landlords; but he must in justice state that the estates of many of the absentee landlords exhibited a greater prosperity than those of a large number of the resident landlords. The evidence given before the Poor Law Commissioners would be found to confirm his statement upon that point. It was not his intention to utter a single word that could be offensive to the present body of Irish landlords. The great majority of them were most humane men, and anxious to discharge their duty. At the same time, he could not but hold them mainly responsible for the present condition of the country. Very recently an Irish proprietor had stated in that House, that rates would not be paid in Ireland. When that declaration reached Ireland, who could tell what effect it might have upon the people? The people might suppose that they would be justified in not paying the rates. He wished to hear the Irish landlords say that they would pay the rates for those who were not able to pay them themselves. He challenged the Irish proprietors to show that he was not justified in casting upon them much responsibility on account of the present condition of the people. He thought they were responsible for the delinquencies of their predecessors, and, as an Irish proprietor, he was willing to take his share of the blame. He hoped that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would give an assurance of his intention to bring in a Bill for the amendment of the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland on the particular points to which he had adverted. On a former occasion he had brought in Bills for effecting that object, and a Bill for the same purpose had been introduced by the late Government. He hoped that the question would not die in the hands of the present Government, but that they would introduce a measure which would really promote the great objects which had been brought under the consideration of the House in the report of the Land Tenure Commission. If such a law were enacted and honestly carried out, it would do more to stimulate employment and improve the condition of the people, than any other measure which Parliament could adopt. The hon. Member concluded by moving— That it appears to this House, from the Reports of various Committees and Commissions, that the system generally adopted in times past in the letting and management of Landed Property in Ireland, has been one of the main causes of the present distressed state of that Country, and the disordered state of its social relations; and that no measures can be effectual in producing a demand for labour, or improving the condition of the people, which shall not include such an amendment of the Laws of Landlord and Tenant as shall give to the improving tenant in occupation a sufficient permanency of tenure, or else establish the tenant's right to claim by law full compensation for all benefits created by the expenditure of his labour and capital on the premises in his occupation.

SIR DENHAM NORREYS

, in seconding the Motion, said, he should not touch on the points so ably dwelt upon by his hon. Friend. He must give it as his strong opinion, that all the Government measures would be, if not neutralized, greatly lessened in value, unless the landlords were induced to give leases. In order to induce the landlords to do so, he thought it would be necessary to sever the elective franchise from tenure; because, while the landlords had the power of creating votes, they dreaded their being used against their views. He thought local taxation should be levied exclusively on those landlords who were unwilling to grant leases of twenty or thirty years. He wished, on this point, to state the opinion of a foreigner who had observed the condition of Ireland, and wrote on it as well as any other writer—he meant M. De Beaumont. That intelligent foreigner said to him, some time back, "so long as Ireland is left without leases, every other measure would be comparatively of little value."

MR. TUITE

Allusion had been made to the protest of Irish proprietors against the extension of out-door relief in Ireland. He did not hesitate to say, that he had signed the document to which he alluded; because, when he saw a large portion of the property of the country not liable to the support of the poor, it was his opinion, that, in common equity, those who were ostensibly landed proprietors should not be made responsible for the whole burden. It was not the Irish landlords who were to be blamed solely for the present state of many parts of that country; for although there were several English landlords possessing property in Ireland, who had acted in the most handsome manner, and had protected their tenantry, it was beyond doubt that they could not be of the same benefit to the poor on their estates as good resident landlords. He was convinced that no measure of this or of any Government could be of advantage to the country till measures had been also taken to make the absentee and neglectful proprietors take that care of their property which society had a right to expect from them, and to make estates held under the Court of Chancery, as well as those belonging to persons living in England or on the Continent, equally responsible. It was owing to absentee landlords, and to their absent or neglectful agents, that the Labour-rate Act and the Government letter had been totally nullified; and he believed that the numerous class of small proprietors, who invested their money in land to make the most of it, were more mischievous than the landlords of great estates.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

wished to call the attention of the House to the operation of the resolutions of his hon. Friend. Representing, as he did, a large and important county, where the system of tenant-right had been fully carried out, and had created the greatest possible confidence between the landlord and tenant, where the greatest improvement was daily going on, and where there was comparative freedom from distress, he was desirous of stating the reasons why he did not support those resolutions. In the first place, he had to observe, that hon. Gentlemen, as he thought, were accustomed to look on Ireland very much as if it were a county, and to consider that the measure which was applicable to a part must be applicable to the whole of Ireland. It was, however, impossible that any system of laws could take effect which was applied to the whole country. An Irishman, to hear them speak, would fancy they looked on him as the denizen of a mere province or of a shire, instead of being the inhabitant of this empire. If hon. Members went more to Ireland, they would easily see how much various parts of it differed. He was sure, then, if those resolutions were carried out, they would prove a very great affliction to the landlords in the south. In the north the system of tenant-right existed already, and there he could bear testimony to the success of it. But he would prefer seeing it introduced in other parts by the gradual exertions of the landlords, rather than by a resolution of the House; and he was afraid he could not support any proposition to make the system imperative by law on landlords differently situated from those in the north of Ireland.

COLONEL CONOLLY

agreed with the noble Lord in his opinion, that it would not be desirable to make the system universal by legal enactment; and objecting as he did to general resolutions, which did not possess the force of law, but had sufficient influence, as the opinion of the House, to disturb the present order of things, and to excite hopes which could not be easily gratified, he was bound to oppose the resolutions of the hon. Member for Rochdale, whilst he gave him every credit for the best intentions, and for his knowledge of the subject. The course adopted by the noble Viscount who had just spoken, and the noble Viscount's father, on their estates, had been, he believed, to recognise tenant-right only in those tenants who had made considerable improvements in the land; and considering it merely as the custom of the country, he should deprecate more than language could describe, the idea of its being made the law of the land. The great use of it seemed to consist in the effect it had in bringing about a good understanding between the landlord and the tenant, as to the improvement of the land; but as he was satisfied the intervention of the law would be pernicious to the tenant, and destructive to the landlord, he would resist the present resolution.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he would detain the House for a very few moments; and if he did not enter at large into the subject brought forward by the hon. Member for Rochdale, he trusted the hon. Member would not attribute it to any insensibility on his part to the great importance of the question, or to any disrespect to him, who was, he admitted, a most excellent Irish landlord, and who had devoted so much time and pains to this subject, as fully to entitle him to the attention of the House. The hon. Member had on a former occasion submitted his views to the House on this very question in the form of a Bill; and if he had taken the same course on the present occasion, he certainly should have made no objection on the part of the Government, without of course pledging it to the principle, to have had the Bill laid on the Table; on the contrary, he should have been glad if the views of the hon. Member had been brought forward in the shape of a Bill. He could not, however, help suspecting that if the hon. Member had altered his course, he had been deterred from pursuing it by the difficulties which surrounded it, and had brought forward those general resolutions instead. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Donegal in disliking abstract and general resolutions; and he thought this particular subject and the present state of Ireland peculiarly unfitted for them. He would just observe on the very vague words and general expressions of the resolution. In the first place, it did not point out any distinct plan; it put two alternatives. The hon. Member called on the House of Commons to assert that it was right to take one of two courses—either to give to the improving tenant in occupation a sufficient permanency of tenure, or else to establish the tenant's right to claim by law full compensation for all benefits created on the land by his expenditure of labour or capital. Now these were two very distinct things—and it was very objectionable for the House to state its concurrence in them, without stating also which of these courses it would prefer. Again, the words in themselves were vague and uncertain. The hon. Member made use of the phrase, "sufficient permanency of tenure." What vague words these were, and what very different ideas would be attached to them in different parts of Ireland with respect to the intentions of the House! For this reason alone he objected to dealing with a question of such importance in this manner. As to the question itself, he readily admitted that it required the most deliberate care and attention of the House. His noble Friend at the head of the Government had already stated that it was the intention of Government to prepare a measure for the improvement of the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland at a period of the Session sufficiently early to enable the House to consider it in the fullest and most careful manner. He thought, therefore, it would not be right to state his opinions on the subject on the present occasion. All he should say was, that if the House interfered with the question—and its interference might certainly be exercised in the present condition of Ireland—they must take special care to do nothing to shake those rights of property which in Ireland, as in every other country, were the cornerstone of civilization and improvement; but he believed it might be right and practicable to interfere in a way which would place the condition of the tenantry in Ireland in a more secure state with respect to their landlords than they were at present. He agreed with the hon. Member for Rochdale in thinking that if they could do so, they would accomplish an object of the utmost importance. He thought a well-timed and carefully-devised Bill on this subject, would be a fit and suitable accompaniment to the other measures which had been laid before the House, and had received or were about to receive their attention. With these views, he did not think it necessary to trouble the House with any further remarks, except to state that when the Government measure was before the House, he would explain his views at greater length; and he would conclude by moving the previous question.

MR. F. FRENCH

seconded the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. In the west of Ireland, it was usual to allow the tenant, for improvements in draining and fencing, by a proportionate abatement of the rent; but with respect to tenant-right itself, he considered it had been most mischievous and unfair to the landlords, and still more so to the tenants themselves. The incoming tenant paid so much for the present interest in the farm, that he was left without money, and consequently could not till the land properly, and thus the landlord got a bad tenant, while the sum paid on entering the land was so great—amounting sometimes to twenty years' purchase—that it ought to buy the fee-simple of the land.

MR. SMITH O'BRIEN

did not think it necessary to offer any observations to the House, as public opinion in Ireland was unanimous in favour of tenant-right. His object in rising was to ask the Government, if they had a measure on the subject in view, when it would be placed on the Table of the House? The people of Ireland would not consider any legislation complete without it.

MR. LABOUCHERE

replied that it was impossible to state the exact time, as that must depend on circumstances, when there were so many matters to be got through that Session; but he hoped to be able to lay it on the Table before Easter.

MR. S. CRAWFORD

spoke in reply, and explained that the reason why he had adopted the form of a resolution on the present occasion, in preference to a Bill was, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had led him to believe that a Bill on the subject would be introduced early in the Session. That had not been done, and he had observed much disappointment in Ireland in consequence. The same promise had been repeated; but as they had an uncertain prospect of the time of its performance, he would on a future day ask leave to introduce a Bill on the subject. Seeing the opinion of the House, he would not press his resolution, and would ask leave to withdraw it.

Resolution withdrawn.