HC Deb 09 August 1843 vol 71 cc412-23
Mr. S. Crawford

rose to move the second reading of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill. It was of the utmost importance, the hon. Member said, to amend the laws relating to landlord and tenant in Ireland. Under the present system the tenant was compelled to take his land upon any terms the landlord or his agent thought fit to impose, and he vas obliged to erect buildings and make every improvement at his own risk and cost, and in case of his removal he could obtain no compensation for his outlay of capital and industry. Again, in Ireland there was the system of letting lands to what were called "middle-men," who obtained large "takes" of land, with the full intention, that they would make money of those lands, by merely letting them to under-tenants. Another system was that of letting lands in common or in co-partner-ship; that was, where the landlords would not let their lands in single acres, but insisted upon four or five men taking a tract of land in common, or in partnership, and any one of them was, under that system, liable to be distrained for the rent of the whole, and the consequence was, that the honest, industrious, hard-working man might be connected in such a partnership, with idle and dissipated persons, and if so, he was sure to be pounced upon for the rent of the whole tract. Another evil arising from the system of "middlemen," was that the middle-men would let houses to poor people without any land connected with them, and the result was, that the poor people occupying such houses were compelled to take land in what were in Ireland called "con-acres," that was to take land for a season, and to pay for it at the enormous rate of from 7l. to 8l. an acre. By these means all encouragement to industry was destroyed, and grievous exactions were levied upon the people. There were plenty of records in the library of that House which would prove every one of the points he had to urge, and especially in the reports of the Poor-law commissioners, which showed in all their details the evils of which he spoke and their results. There was one of those reports in which the principle which he sought to carry into operation by this bill was referred to, and to that report he should feel it his duty to call the attention of the House on the present occasion. In the course of the examination carried on by the Poor-law commissioners in Ireland, they had directed their inquiries as to how far it would be expedient to pass a law rendering the landlord responsible to the tenant for the valuable improvements which the tenant might have made upon the land. Before that commission issued, however, he had brought in a bill in 1834, for that purpose, but still the attention of the Poor-law Commissioners for Ireland having been directed to the subject, they examined into the point as to how far such a law ought to be carried, and in prosecuting the inquiry, in no less than fourteen different districts, they received an answer in the affirmative as to the great utility of such a law. In Appendix F to the report and at page 147, a witness who was examined before the commissioners prosecuting an inquiry in the county of Mayo states, in answer to a question as to improvement:— They would be cutting their own throats if they laid out their money, for, where the lease is out, the rent is raised; were it otherwise they would plant trees and build walls; but I never knew an instance of a landlord, on the expiration of a lease of land improved by the tenant, taking one farthing less than he (the tenant) had made it worth. The hon. Member read several passages to the same effect, and then continued. He could read to the House several other extracts to the same point, and in favour of the powers which he proposed to give under this bill, but he would not fatigue the House with them. There was, however, one remarkable instance, showing the hard-heartedness of the landlords, and the rigour with which some of them acted, which he must read. The commissioner for the county of Dublin, speaking of the food of the people (page 227), stated:— Though most of the small occupiers and labourers grow apple-potatoes and cup-potatoes, they do not generally use those kinds themselves, except as holyday fare, and as a little indulgence on particular occasions. They can only afford to use lumpers, an inferior kind, fit only for pigs and cattle, and they sell the others for the payment of their rent. The commissioner then went on to state:— A landlord in passing the door of one of his tenants—a small occupier who owed some arrear of rent—saw one of his daughters washing potatoes at the door, and perceiving that they were of the apple kind, asked her if they were intended for her dinner. Upon being answered that they were, he entered the house and asked the tenant, what he meant by eating apple-potatoes when they were fetching so good a price in Dublin market? This landlord, of course, thought his tenant ought to have been content to eat lumpers. This, however, was an instance of the manner in which certain landlords desired to oppress the people. He did not mean to include all landlords in that observation. He knew in Ireland as good landlords as in any other part of the kingdom; but he knew this, that there were in Ireland landlords who extorted and oppressed in such a degree, that such a measure as that he now proposed was absolutely necessary. The Poor-law commissioners had reported upon the effects of this system in very strong terms, and they attributed to it the increase of crime, unlawful combinations, poverty, ignorance, indolence, and excessive population. The preamble of the bill now under consideration declared, amongst other things:— That whereas it appears by returns made to Parliament of ejectments entered and decrees pronounced in the several courts of law, that an extended and progressively increasing system of ejectment of the small holders is in operation in that country, and that from this, various outrages and disorders have occurred. Returns had been made in the years 1833 and 1842, and those returns showed that the number of ejectments entered, amounted to 71,397 in five years, being at the rate of 14,339 for each year; and by a comparison with former returns in nineteen counties, the ejectments had nearly doubled in the last nine years. He was not now going into the question as to how far it was right or wrong to have large or small holdings; but this he would say, that it was most grievous to drive these poor people away in so sudden a manner. Let them, then, have the protection which he proposed, and which was, that if they had made any valuable or useful improvements in the farm, the landlord ejecting them should be compelled to give them fair compensation. This was all the bill claimed for them, and he asked simply, if it was not consistent with justice? The principle was not new in legislation. In England, when the exterminating system took place in the fifteenth century, Parliament had not been nice in interfering with the rights of landlords. The present bill only went to re-enact the provisions of the laws passed at that period to restrain landlords. On this point he would only trouble the House by referring to the provisions of the statute 4th Henry 7th, c. 19, as a sample of those laws. It recited the desolation produced by the then general system of depopulation, and it enacted that all persons, of whatever state, degree, or condition, who had any houses for three years before let with twenty acres of land for husbandry, shall be bound to maintain and replace such houses, and return such lands to the purposes of husbandry, or in default to forfeit to the next in fee, or else to the king, half the profits and issues of such lands until the provisions of the statute be executed. The 2nd and 3rd of Philip and Mary recited and confirmed the above act; it appointed commissioners to carry it into effect, and to enforce punishment, and by it the commissioners were enabled to abate rents when they thought proper. Lord Bacon, in two different parts of his works, praised the statute of Henry 8th, and Sir E. Coke named the offence known under the name of "depopulatores agrorum" as an offence which the King could not pardon, because it was an offence against the common weal. When there were such statutes as these to be found amongst English acts of Parliament—statutes making a great inroad into the rights of landlords, would the House refuse its sanction to a measure founded upon them? Let it be remembered, that in Ireland a tenant was not a free agent—that he was not capable of protecting himself; and like other persons acting under a sort of compulsion, should be protected by the law. Why was it that the law declared the usurer should not take more than a certain rate of interest, but to protect the borrower against the rapacity of the usurer? If any class required the protection of the law, it was that class to which the poor Irish peasant belonged—he was entitled to it according to the principle of English law, and Parliament was bound in justice to afford it to him. Nothing could be of the smallest use in ameliorating the condition of the people of Ireland, if the laws affecting landlords and tenants were not altered so as to give protection and security to the latter. He now felt the deep importance of pressing this question upon the attention of Parliament. Having, during the discussion upon the Arms Bill, been blamed with others for censuring the Government for not taking measures to ameliorate the condition of the people of Ireland, and having heard it said, "We do not know what measure to propose," he thought it his duty to propose this one, that it might no longer be said he was blaming the Government for doing nothing, and at the same time was himself involved in the accusation. The object of the bill was to encourage leasing for long tenures. The claimant was to have no claim under the bill except what was founded on his own industry; and the provisions were of that nature that they would protect the landlord as well as the tenant, who would be put in a fair position, so that in case of ejectment he should be compensated for what he had done to improve the estate of the landlord. In cases of dispute respecting sums under 100l., the tenant would be entitled to sue in the Barristers' Court, which would be a cheap means of obtaining justice; and claims exceeding 100l. would be submitted to arbitration by a rule of the superior court, similar to the practice in the English courts. He could have no expectation of going on with the bill this Session, but he was exceedingly anxious, upon a subject so deeply interesting to the people of Ireland, to hear the opinions of her Majesty's Government. It was impossible, in his opinion, for any Government to adopt any measure which could tend so much to soothe the asperities existing in Ireland; nor would anything be more satisfactory than an intimation which would lead the people of Ireland to suppose, that though the measure could not be carried out this Session, the subject would receive the consideration of her Majesty's Government, and that in a future Session they would endeavour to do their best to settle this question to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. It was impossible that there could be any peace or prosperity so long as the population of Ireland continued to suffer as at present. He would not press the second reading, if the Government, or the Members of the House generally, wished that more time should be given for its consideration, and if he was encouraged to hope, that at a future time the subject would be favourably considered by her Majesty's Government. But he did not wish the people of Ireland to be deluded by false hopes. Whatever course her Majesty's Government took upon the present occasion, this debate would be read with the deepest interest, and it was better that the people should know what they had to expect. He did not wish to make accusations against any party, or to have this question treated in a party spirit. He was ready to acknowledge that amongst the hon. Gentlemen who were politically opposed to him, were as good landlords as amongst his own party. He was anxious to do that which would support the landlords of Ireland; and they could have no security for any rights they possessed, except that security was founded upon justice to the tenants.

Sir R. Peel

could assure the hon. Gentleman, and the House, that he was little disposed to view this bill with any prejudice on account of the character and motives of the hon. Gentleman by whom it had been introduced, for he had a strong impression that the hon. Gentleman was influenced by pure and disinterested motives. So far as he had any knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, his character was not founded upon his professions in that House, but his practical conduct as a landlord, entitled the hon. Gentleman, he was sure, to the respect of all those who knew him or who had the happiness of being connected with him; but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not ask the House to come to any decision upon this question. It was one of such extreme delicacy and difficulty, that if her Majesty's Government were to express any opinion, it would be of the greatest importance, whatever principles might be affirmed, that with respect to the relation of landlord and tenant, they ought not to leave the matter in a vague state for several months; but having affirmed a principle as to the object of the measure, and as to the possibility of its being carried out, they ought then to proceed at once to the details by which its principles were to be developed. With respect, therefore, to a measure of such extreme difficulty as the relation of landlord and tenant, if they were to legislate for this part of the empire, or for Scotland, he should be strongly disposed to advise the House not in one Session to avow a principle, and in another to carry it into effect. He had given the question as much consideration as he had been able amidst the claims of many other subjects, upon the attention of her Majesty,s Government; but so far as he had been able to refer to some of the acts quoted in the preamble of this bill, he thought, that there must be some misapprehension as to the intention and effects of some of those acts. The third part of the preamble of the bill was this:— And whereas, by the ancient laws of England it is the acknowledged right and duty of Parliament to protect the occupiers of lands from the unjust, arbitrary, and excessive exercise of the powers of eviction conferred on the owners thereof, as shown by va- rious statutes passed in the reigns of former Sovereigns, for the purpose of controlling landlords in the exercise of such power, and for punishing the improper use of it. Now, the intention and effect of those statutes did not seem clearly to correspond with the description in the preamble. The 5th of Henry 8th, cap. 5, the principal act quoted was— Whosoever decayeth any town or house of husbandry, or doth convert tillage into pasture, shall forfeit to the lord of the fee half, of the profits thereof. He presumed, that the tenant was under an obligation to continue in repair the house of which he was the lessee, and in case of neglect, that he would be liable to forfeiture. It appeared to him, therefore, that more attention ought to be given to this subject before they consented to this measure. He did not wish to pronounce an opinion against the principle of the bill? but the principle was such, that the tenant, without the consent of the landlord, without his sanction, or without consulting him, might lay out an unlimited sum under his own superintendence, in draining and improvement of the land, and at the expiration of the lease he might recover from the landlord the amount of that expenditure. That would make an important distinction between the law of England and that of Ireland, and for the sake of all parties interested the measure should not be agreed to without due consideration. Since the hon. Gentleman gave notice of his intention, the Government had directed a careful review of the law of England and Ireland in respect to this subject to be made; and in stating that the Government would be disposed to give a fair consideration to the subject, he must at the same time say that they would discountenance any expectation that they meant to recognize in any shape that which was called fixity of tenure or any alienation of the rights of the landlord; being satisfied that the maintenance of the just rights of property was the great characteristic of social improvement, and that any attempt to controul or interfere with the just and legitimote rights of property, and must be the greatest blow to industry and the accumulation of wealth that could possibly be given; but, on the other hand, the Government was not to be deterred by a fear of being charged with encouraging vague and futile hopes from giving consideration to the improvement of the law with respect to the relation of landlord and tenant. While he felt bound to discourage what was termed fixity of tenure, at the same time he was not prepared to say that the Government, through fear of unjust imputations, should refrain from giving to the subject that consideration which was necessary to ascertain the difference between the law and practice of England and Ireland, in order to see whether it could justify the application of any different principle of law. But he was not now prepared to give any opinion upon the principle of this bill, or to take any other course than to exhort the hon. Gentleman not to ask for a vote upon the second reading, but to allow an opportunity for the consideration of the subject during the interval of the present and the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. M. O'Ferrall

thought that a lengthened discussion upon a question of this sort at so late a period of the Session would be most impolitic; and her Majesty's Government, in promising to consider the subject, had done as much as they ought to do. The question was in a very unsatisfactory state. He had never held that those who wished to amend the law in respect to it, wished to rob the landlords; on the contrary, he thought those who said so were exceedingly wrong. His hon. Friend, the Member for Rochdale, was himself, in his own character and conduct, the best evidence in disproof of such a notion. There was not a better landlord or a man who gave a more practical proof of the purity of his intentions; for while he displayed a fair desire to maintain the rights of property, he was constantly promoting the comfort and happiness of those who were connected with or dependent upon him. If the example of his hon. Friend had been followed at an earlier period, we should not now have to deplore the evils and crimes that marked the present day. The landlord was the victim of the law; he was compelled to carry it out. He submitted to her Majesty's Government the propriety of instituting such an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining all the consequences of the present law. He believed that the landlords were more interested in the settlement of this question than the tenants. But the subject ought to be taken up so as to command the respect and confidence of both.

Sir A. Brooke

was understood to say, that he believed very few landlords in Ireland would object to the principle of the bill. He agreed with the hon. Member for Rochdale that it was very hard for tenants to be ejected without remuneration for the improvements they had made upon the estates of their landlords. There was one proviso in the bill on which he wished to make an observation, that relating to the emigration of the tenant. Should the tenant wish to emigrate he should apply to his landlord for liberty to dispose of his right in his farm which he occupied. Should that request be acceded to, it ought to be considered as a privilege, and not as a right. He was glad to hear the right hon. Baronet say, that he would give the subject his best consideration between this and next Session; and that he would examine into the relative condition of the Irish landlord and tenant. It was a general impression among a certain class, that the Irish landlord had acted harshly towards his tenantry. The wretchedness and misery so generally prevalent in that country were attributed to the hard and cruel conduct of the landlords; but these impressions were erroneous. He fully concurred in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government on a former occasion. The right hon. Baronet observed, I said before, and I say again, that the indiscriminate and inconsiderate expulsion from the soil of whole families, without some refuge or means of relief being provided for them, may be a legal, but it is not a moral or a humane act. It is an act with which I cannot concur. I say it is not only the duty but the interest of those who throw those unfortunate persons on the world to consider the dreadful situation in which they place them by such violent exercise of the power which the law places in their hands. I say it is possible to blend improvement with humanity. It was his most anxious wish to see the question amicably settled.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell

said, the debate which had taken place that night was one of the very few gratifying discussions which had occurred connected with Ireland during the present Session. He was pleased with the tone of the debate. Hon. Members not only gave vent to expressions of sympathy, but there existed strong reasons to hope that the subject to which the motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale referred would, during the course of the next Session, be considered by her Majesty's Government. He thought that the right hon. Baronet had given good reason for not pledging himself immediately to any particular view of the question. He hoped that the hon. Member for Rochdale would not press his motion to a division; should he do so, of course he would vote in favour of it. He regretted that the subject of fixity of tenure should have been alluded to. That point was not legitimately before the House. The question had many prejudices and difficulties connected with it. He trusted, when that subject came before the House, that these difficulties and prejudices would be removed. He thought that every effort ought to be made to encourage the tenant to lay out money in the improvement of the farm he occupied. He hoped that the Government would bring the subject of fixity of tenure before the House next Session, with a view to its final settlement. He felt assured, that were that to be effected the most dangerous portion of the agitation in Ireland, that associated with a tendency to outrage, would be removed. He again thanked the right hon. Baronet for the manner in which he had considered the question, and he hoped that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman would have their proper effect in Ireland, and produce that feeling of satisfaction which he (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) felt they ought to give rise to.

Sir D. Norreys

said, that the subject under discussion was one deeply connected with the best interests of Ireland. The melancholy state of the starving peasantry of that country demanded their patient and earnest consideration. It was a matter of little consequence what they did with the franchise with municipal rights, so long as the social condition of the peasantry of Ireland remained unimproved. It was that which gave rise to the agitation which prevailed in that country. He had a right to complain of the manner in which the right hon. Baronet treated the proposition of the hon. Member for Rochdale. The right hon. Baronet had first referred to the preamble of the bill, and then to the doctrine of the fixity of tenure; at the conclusion of the right hon. Baronet's speech he stated that that subject should be considered by the Government during the recess. With regard to the bill before the House, he was bound to state that it contained many clauses which would be totally impracticable. His name certainly was attached to the bill. The hon. Member for Rochdale, in consequence of some observations which had fallen from him on a former occasion, had asked him to allow his name to be affixed to the bill, and he had consented. But he did not see the bill after it was printed, and therefore could not be held responsible for its clauses. In the principle of the measure he, however, fully concurred. If they improved the tenure of land in Ireland, they would not have the people coming to England as beggars for money to carry on the public works in that country. If the Irish people were taught to trust more to themselves and the national resources of their own country, and less to others, their condition would be much better.

Sir R. Peel

said, that the hon. Baronet had accused him of treating the question before the House with unbecoming levity. He denied the imputation. He had not addressed any observation half so strong against the bill as had fallen from the hon. Baronet himself.

Mr. S. Crawford

said, that he would act upon the advice which had been given and withdraw the bill.

Bill, with permission, withdrawn.