The EARL of LINCOLNrose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in three Bills—namely, a Bill to provide for compensation to tenants of land in Ireland for improvements made by them; a Bill to amend the law in respect of the power of ejectment and distress in Ireland; and a Bill to provide for a short form of lease of lands and tenements in Ireland. The noble Lord said, it had been his duty, two days ago, to address the House on a subject connected with Ireland, on which 280 strong feelings of antagonism had been excited in that House and elsewhere, and as to which both the people of Ireland and the people of other parts of the Empire were in opinion diametrically opposed. It was now his duty to trespass on their attention with a subject which in some respects would be more pleasing. He was about to ask leave to introduce measures upon which, whatever difference of opinion there might hereafter be as to the details of their provisions, he could not expect that there would be any feeling of excitement such as had arisen on the other measure; but upon which, as regarded their principle he might, on the contrary, expect every one in that House to be united; on which no feelings of party animosity could be excited, or any rivalry arise except one of a generous and kindly nature, as to which should give the most effectual aid towards the common object, that of improving the condition of the people of Ireland, by increasing and improving the cultivation of the soil, and securing to tenants that security in their investments in the land without which it must be admitted by all men, whether Englishmen or Irishmen, it was hopeless to expect that the soil would be properly cultivated, or the improvement of the people otherwise than prejudiced and retarded. He desired to consult the convenience of the House on this occasion, by addressing them on the subject of the three Bills together, as they were cognate Bills, rather than by introducing each Bill separately to the House. Upon that principle, then, he would proceed. He need hardly say, that these Bills were mainly founded upon the Report of Lord Devon's Commission, of which, he was happy to say, three members were Members of that House, and were now present. He did not mean to say, however, that all these measures, and more especially the first, were in exact accordance with the recommendations of that Commission; though, on the other hand, they would not have to complain of any great divergence from that which they had recommended. They proposed several recommendations as to the tenure of land in Ireland. It was now proposed in these measures to deal with three only of those recommendations. Her Majesty's Goverement, however, were far from saying that the others would not be valuable, or that at some future time, when the measures he now proposed should have been discussed, and he hoped passed, those sug- 281 gestions might not be adopted. He referred here, of course, to measures of a legislative character. The recommendations which were embodied in the Bills he now proposed to introduce were, he believed the House would admit, the most important of all those contained in the report. This subject had been so much discussed, not only in that House but also by the press and throughout the country—public attention had been not merely so repeatedly drawn to it, but really so rivetted upon it, partly by what had occurred in Ireland, partly by the efforts of the press, and of Members of that House, and by the reports of this Commission and of previous Commissions, that he felt he would be unduly trespassing on the attention of the House if he were to enter into any lengthened argument, for the purpose of proving the necessity of legislating on this subject, or if he were to make any lengthened quotations from the report of this Commission, or from those of previous Commissions and Committees of that House. He was quite prepared, should the House wish it, to establish his case by such means; but he felt that he would be only unnecessarily trespassing on their attention, and he should therefore proceed at once to explain the manner in which he proposed to deal with the subject. He believed that there was no one but would admit that the subject was one of extreme difficulty; that it was perhaps one with which few could in this respect be compared; or that it was as delicate as it was difficult. He was satisfied also that these difficulties could not be overcome, unless those who were interested in the subject, one way or other, would agree to wave minor objects, and look to such a settlement of this question as would be most satisfactory to all classes of the community. He (Lord Lincoln) need only appeal to the efforts that had from time to time been made by the hon. Member for Rochdale, in order to show what difficulties there were in the way of settlement. He was sure there was no Member of that House who would not be prepared to do justice to the honest efforts of that hon. Member to legislate satisfactorily on this measure; but they would also admit, that after he had for many successive years attempted to devise measures upon this question, he had on each occasion materially altered the plan he had previously submitted to the House; so much so, that not only were all the details different, but even the principle was not in 282 any case identical. This he did not urge as showing any want of fixity in the views of the hon. Member for Rochdale, but only as proving that the question was beset with difficulties even to those who had given it their most serious and anxious consideration. Feeling, then, that it was not only right, but absolutely necessary, that Parliament should legislate on the subject, he must at the same time also express his conviction that, legislate as they might, it was impossible that the relations of landlord and tenant could be so regulated by any Act of Parliament but that much must still remain to be done by the parties themselves, and much left to the justice, moderation, and good feeling of both landlords and tenants. It was the duty of Parliament to legislate for the best; but the success of any measures must still depend upon the landlords as a class, and on the character and conduct of individual landlords. Without assistance from them, no legislative measure could be successful. So convinced was he of this, that he was of opinion that much might be done by the combined efforts of both landlords and tenants even without legislation. He did not see that Parliament could do much more than see justice done between the two parties. The noble Lord opposite agreed with him in thinking that it would be most unwise and improper for Parliament so to tamper with this subject, as even to produce an impression on the public mind in Ireland, that you were willing to endanger the foundations of the rights of property, or, on account of the special case of Ireland, to render insecure those interests which every country felt ought to be based upon the most secure foundations. Even before he held his present office, he had devoted the most axious attention to these subjects; and he was of opinion—an opinion strengthened since—that it was the duty of the Legislature to interpose in the present state of affairs as regarded the tenure of land in Ireland. They had been told, and they might be told again, that a great principle was involved in the non-interference between landlord and tenant—that whatever might occur, we ought not to interfere. But whatever might be the advantages in the abstract of that doctrine, he (Lord Lincoln) was not prepared to act upon it; for he need scarcely say he agreed with the Commissioners, when they laid it down that an improved cultivation of the soil, and an advanced 283 condition of the people, were intimately connected with the general prosperity of the whole Empire. He had been much struck with a sentence in one of Mr. Nicholls's (the Poor Law Commissioner's) reports, in which he said that in Ireland want of employment produced destitution; destitution, turbulence; turbulence want of security; want of security, want of capital; and want of capital, want of employment. Here was a complete circle of cause and effect; and the House were bound to interfere in such a state of things. That interference was not merely justifiable but absolutely necessary for the safety of the country. He doubted whether there was now any member in the House of any political party who was not in favour of interference. Two leading principles pervaded more especially the first Bill of the three. One of these was to encourage, as far as possible, tenants, when they had capital, to invest it in the improvement of the soil. The Commissioners stated, that not unfrequently the capital of the farmer consisted only of the labour of himself and his family, and that if the best application of that labour were pointed out, it would be generally found that the Irish peasant was ready to co-operate in producing improvements beneficial alike to himself and to the country. Looking, then, to the many instances in which the tenantry of Ireland had not capital to expend on improvements, the Commissioners had judged wisely in recommending (as they had done strongly) that encouragement should be given to landlords to effect those improvements, especially under certain circumstances. Though ready to admit that any thing like compulsion in these matters was at variance with abstract principle, yet it would be admitted by all that, as regarded mere voluntary agreements, great facilities might be afforded for effecting improvements under them. The Commissioners thought some provision necessary to meet those cases which could not be settled by private agreement. He should now briefly explain the provisions of those Bills. The first differed from that which was last year introduced by his noble Friend the then Secretary for the Colonies (Lord Stanley), by which a new machinery was created, such as those who were most conversant with the subject considered cumbrous and unsuited to the circumstances of the country. No new machinery was introduced by any of these three Bills; and simplicity so far as it 284 was attainable, was unquestionably a great object in such a matter. Some of the machinery had been adopted on the recommendation of the Commissioners, namely, that which related to the assistant barristers. The first two clauses referred to voluntary agreements. Under that head it was proposed to admit all kinds of improvements. A broad distinction was felt to exist between improvements on the soil generally and two kinds of improvement which it was proposed to adopt under what he might term the compulsory clauses, namely, building and thorough drainage. Those it was proposed to charge upon the inheritance as permanent improvements. As to voluntary agreements, it was proposed that a tenant anxious to effect any improvements should serve a notice, in a form prescribed in a schedule attached to the Bill, upon the immediate landlord. If the landlord approved of the improvement, he signified his assent also in a form which was prescribed. But this part of the plan being voluntary, if the landlord refused his assent, the whole matter dropped to the ground. But, further, it was proposed to give the tenant a right of applying, in the event of the landlord's refusal of the more general application, for a compulsory arrangement in reference to these two heads, building and thorough drainage. On these points the Bill in some respects differed from the views of the Commissioners, who held that thorough drainage should not be included, and wished more closely to assimilate the law in Ireland to the practice in England, rendering that compulsory only which in practice was invariable in England, namely, that the landlord should be bound to provide buildings for his tenants. But thorough drainage was so essential a matter as regarded the improvement of land, more especially in Ireland, that he (the Earl of Lincoln) should be exceedingly disappointed if the House were to decide that thorough drainage should be excluded from the class of improvements which should be made compulsory. If, however, there were to be compulsory compensation, justice to the landlord demanded that the nature and cost of the improvements should be completely ascertained; and this consideration would explain a great many of the provisions introduced into, the measure. One great difficulty, which had no parallel in England, arose from the multiplicity of landlords connected with the same piece of land in Ireland. The notice which was to be 285 served with a view to a compulsory improvement was to be served upon all the landlords having an interest which extended to thirty-one years. The service upon the immediate landlord was to be in person; upon the others service through the Post Office would be sufficient. The immediate landlord was bound to name an arbiter, and bound also to say whether he was willing to do the work himself; otherwise an allowance would be required on the outlay, not exceeding 5 per cent upon building, and 4 per cent upon thorough drainage. His reason for introducing this provision, and the distinction of the rate of interest, was, that it was on all hands admitted as most desirable that, as regarded buildings, such improvements should be executed by the landlord, and not by the tenant. There was greater security for having the work well done; and, if too great inducements were held out to improvements of that class by the tenants, the effect would probably be to distract their attention from the improvement of the soil. Looking, however, to the very small holdings into which properties were divided in Ireland, it appeared to him advisable to place thorough drainage on another footing. Upon the notice being served in the form prescribed, the landlord might see fit to assent to the execution of the work either by himself or by the tenant; and the landlord's form of assent was given in the schedule. If he assented on receiving the last notice to which allusion had been made, the transaction became a voluntary agreement, but with this difference from the voluntary agreement contemplated in the earlier clauses of the Bill, that it was confined to two objects exclusively—building and thorough drainage. The expenses of these improvements would thus become a charge upon the inheritance. If the landlord gave his assent, the next step was that the document which embodied that assent was filed with the clerk of the peace. If the landlord objected, he was bound to serve a notice of objection, and appoint an arbiter. In the event of the landlord refusing to appoint an arbiter, which refusal would otherwise put a veto on the whole proceedings, it was proposed that arbitrators should be chosen by the assistant-barrister and the justices at quarter sessions. There was obviously good reason for vesting that power in a body composed of the class to which the landlords belonged. If the arbitrators agreed, then they proceeded to make their award. If they dis- 286 agreed, they were called on to appoint an umpire. But if, as frequently, it was said, occurred in Ireland, parties could not agree in the choice of an umpire, then it was provided that the umpire should be chosen by the assistant-barrister, without in this case the assistance of the justices at quarter-sessions, as the umpire should not be chosen by those who belonged to the same class as the landlord. The award being made, an option was given to the landlord within thirty-one days of intimating his resolution to undertake the works. The award having become final, was to be registered with the clerk of the peace. This was the last preliminary state; and the parties then received liberty to proceed with the improvement. It was needless to add that power of inspection was given to the landlord. [Mr. HAWES: Who pays the arbitrators?] The parties paid the arbitrators. The next portion of the Bill related to the mode of arranging the compensation. Two plans had been suggested. The one adopted in the Bill was that within seven years of the award being made, a party quitting his tenancy should be compensated in the whole sum expended on improvements; that a party quitting at the end of fourteen years should receive three-fourths of the sum expended on improvements; that a party quitting at the end of twenty-one years should receive one-half; and at the end of twenty-eight years, one-quarter. At the same time, an option was given in a case where the period of tenancy had expired antecedently to the twenty-eight years; and if the landlord chose to continue the party in possession till the expiration of the whole twenty-eight years, the tenant should not then be entitled to compensation. The other proposal which had been made on this point was one which had met more favour in the eyes of the Commission than that which he had proposed to adopt. It was, that, for a period of thirty years, a party should be entitled to receive the whole cost of his improvements, deducting on the valuation the diminution of value within that time. The lapse of time before this valuation and other circumstances, opened a door for great disputes between landlord and tenant; the one probably asserting that more, and the other that less had been done. The other plan, therefore, he had proposed as that by which the object would be better gained; it being understood that the landlord should bear the expense of tear and wear. A provision was then inserted to meet the diffi- 287 culty to which he had alluded, arising from the number of intermediate landlords, that if a landlord with a terminable interest in the land paid the tenant for improvements, he should be repaid by those who succeeded in the estate. A provision was then inserted, that at the completion of these works, by mutual consent, but not otherwise, the landlord might pay the whole cost of the improvements. Provision was also made to meet the case of the landlord failing to fulfil his obligations under the award, and to render him liable in damages for breach of contract. These were the leading provisions of the first Bill. The next Bill was for the alteration of the law in regard to ejectment and distress. In the first place, the provisions of the 56th George III., which gave power of distraint on the growing crops, were abolished. He knew that a difference of opinion prevailed in Ireland as to the expediency of removing this power of distraint; but he believed the Commissioners and others were of opinion that its disadvantages overbalanced the advantages which it might be supposed to possess; and in this opinion every inquiry he had made disposed him to agree. Then provision was made for regulating costs incases of distress. There was at present no such limit as was now proposed; and the provision, it would be allowed, was a valuable provision as regarded the interests of the tenants. He now came to the second part of this Bill, viz., that which related to ejectments. He hoped that the anticipations which might be formed as to what it was in the power of Parliament to enact, or of Government to propose, would not go to such lengths as he feared they had in some instances, and in other places, gone. The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell) in the course of a debate this Session pressed very strongly for the repeal of the 56th George III., and of the 1st George IV., by which the power of ejectment by civil bill process was first enacted. Quite apart from any interest the landlord had in this question, he could not but agree with the report of the Commissioners on this point, that it would not be for the interest of tenants that this law should be repealed. The 56th of George III. was introduced by two Gentlemen well acquainted with Ireland, and great authorities on the other side of the House, Sir J. Newport and Mr. Ponsonby. It was amended by the 1st of George IV., the same two Gentlemen undertaking the re- 288 vision, assisted by another gentleman well acquainted with Ireland, Mr. Leslie Poster. This was primâ facie evidence in favour of the enactment; but he laid more stress on the evidence given before the Commissioners in favour of the retention of the power of ejectment by this process. When addressing the House on the Protection of Life Bill, he had quoted the evidence of a Roman Catholic gentleman of considerable eminence—Mr. Cahill. The same gentleman, when examined before the Commission, was asked whether he considered the power of ejectment by quarter sessions generally advantageous to the lower class of occupiers? and he stated, "it was absolutely necessary some cheap mode of recovering possession from small tenants should exist, or the landlord would not allow his land to be held by them at all; if it cost 13l. or 15l. to recover possession of two, three, or five acres of land, proprietors would not let it at all to such tenants; and this would operate injuriously." Another gentleman, Mr. Baldwin, assistant barrister for the county of Cork, also stated ejectment by civil bill process to be as fair a mode of proceeding as he could suggest; it gave two advantages to the tenant, one technical, the other substantial, which he would not have under the process of the superior courts; one was, in case of insolvency, service on the assignee could be proved vivâ voce; the other was, that an equitable defence could be made by the tenant under this process, which could not be made in the superior court. But there was a still greater advantage in the civil bill process, in the much smaller amount of costs it involved. Under the civil bill process the costs were never more than 1l., and generally only 15s.; in the superior courts they were never under 20l., and if a trial took place they varied from 50l. to 100l. Under the civil bill process, too, the tenant could redeem within six months, by paying his rent and the costs; it was, therefore, of great importance to him, whether he could do it by paying his rent plus 15s. or 50l. As at present advised, then, he could not consent to the recommendation of the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell) to repeal the 56th George III.; he could, only look for an amendment of the law of ejectment by other means. It now simply remained to explain the leading alterations he proposed. He would omit two or three points of detail, because they were purely of a legal and technical 289 character, and would be better explained hereafter by the Attorney General; but he could assure the House they were all in favour of the tenant. He would go to the main provisions of the Bill, one of which was, that the landlord should be bound to give the tenant the particulars of the demand made upon him when the ejectment was served, which was not the case at present; power was then given to the tenant to pay the sum mentioned in the demand either to the landlord or into court, as he might think fit, and to stop the ejectment at any time before the completion of the process, or before he was actually dispossessed. There was also another provision of considerable importance, having some bearing on transactions which had recently occurred, and had attracted much public notice. At present, if a landlord wished to eject a tenant holding immediately under himself, he was obliged also to serve notices on all the sub-tenants who held under the middleman. Every one who had at all attended to this subject would admit that a great deal of disturbance had been the consequence of this state of things. In this Bill a provision was introduced, enabling the landlord to eject the middleman without serving notices on the sub-tenants, who would stand precisely as before. This was a greater improvement in the law than would at first sight appear; and he hoped that even this single provision would prevent many of those scenes which had occurred in Ireland. He now came to the last of the three Bills, one for providing a form of lease of land; and he was sorry he should be obliged in some respects to alter the title of the Bill as given in the notice, because, when it came to be practically worked out, considerable difficulty was experienced in drawing up a "short" form of lease. The fault which he feared would be found with the draught of lease attached to the present Bill, was its length. But as it was desirable that facilities should be afforded for parties to write their own leases without the assistance of a solicitor, a form had been given in the Act. The stamp duties on leases had also been diminished, for the purpose of giving parties the option of using the form of lease in the Act, or one under Lord Brougham's Act of last Session, which was not so easily drawn up without the assistance of a solicitor; if either form of lease was not adopted in toto, of course the benefit offered in the reduction of stamp duty could not be given. He trusted the reduction of duty 290 would not cause a loss to the revenue; aud he expressed this hope, not for the sake of the revenue, but because the fact of there being no loss would be a guarantee that the practice of granting leases had been greatly extended. He had felt it impossible to introduce in either of these Bills any provisions for enforcing the granting of leases; but, having rejected compulsory provisions, he had felt it his duty to give every possible encouragement to the practice. For this purpose he proposed that the stamp duty should be diminished to 2s. 6d. on all leases for lands not exceeding 50l. rental. That, perhaps, might seem a high maximum; but it had been adopted in the Bill, after consultation with gentlemen of more practical knowledge of the subject than he possessed. He had been reminded that in stating the details of the first of the three Bills, he had omitted rather an important point. It would be obviously unjust not to limit the amount to which a tenant might expend money in improvements; he proposed, therefore, to limit the sum the tenant should expend in compulsory improvements to an amount not exceeding three years' rental of the occupation. He hoped he had not trespassed too long upon the House, or gone too minutely into the details of these measures; it was almost unavoidable; at the same time he hoped he had made them tolerably clear. He could assure the House he placed the Bills on the Table with some hopeful anticipations of the favour with which they would be received, though he did not anticipate he could meet the exaggerated wishes of parties either in one direction or the other. In framing these measures, his attention, during the short period he had held his present office, and that of his Colleagues, had been devoted to introducing a proposition which should alike regard the rights of the poor and the rights of the rich—the rights of property and the rights of labour. He hoped that object had been attained; at any rate, he trusted the House, when the Bills were printed and before them, would give them their candid consideration: by any premature expression of opinion on this occasion, perhaps the measure might be prejudiced; with only his imperfect explanation before them, hon. Members might condemn what they might hereafter approve, and parties might, in consequence, be indisposed to adopt the provisions, and look with jealousy upon these enactments. In conclusion, he would 291 say he should indeed rejoice if the House approved the measures he asked leave to introduce; he should still more rejoice if they were passed into laws; and he sincerely prayed that their results might conduce to the improvement, welfare, and prosperity of Ireland. The noble Lord moved for leave to bring in the first of the three Bills he had described, namely, a Bill for improving the relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland.
§ MR. S. CRAWFORD, after alluding to the exertions he had made for ten years to effect similar improvements in the present law, and the little encouragement he had met with in doing so, said he was fully aware of the difficulties of the question, and hoped the noble Lord's Bills might effect the objects in view. He expressed the greatest satisfaction that the question had been taken up by the Government; though he could not go into the details, he rejoiced it had been submitted to Parliament with a chance of an equitable adjustment. He thought it was a great omission that the compensation to tenants did not apply to improvements already made, and only affected those improvements that might be made hereafter. Nor ought the amount to be limited to three years' rental of the holding. He had a tenant who, on a rental of 69l. a year, had made improvements worth 1,000l.; another with 29l. rent, to the amount of 400l.; and a third, with 31l. a year rent, also to 400l. On a property of eight tenants there had been improvements made to the amount of 4,050l.; under the Act he should be enabled to step in, and and obtain the whole of that amount for the three years' rental, or for 849l. He spoke of buildings alone; if he included improvements in the soil, they would amount to double that sum. Was it just or right that such persons should be left in his power to such an extent on the expiration of their leases? [An hon. MEMBER: They are for ninety-nine years.] He spoke of a lease for ninety-nine years which was expiring. He thought also that those who had already made improvements ought to have some protection. He rejoiced, however, in the ameliorations proposed; he agreed that to place the power of ejectment by petty sessions under some limit and regulations, was better than abolishing it altogether; and concluded by stating that he should give the measures his support, taking the liberty at the same time of endeavouring to suggest improvements in them.
§ MR. J. O'CONNELLsaid, as the Ministry had thought it necessary to avoid a bold and just course of action between the Irish landlords and their tenants, the present was the next best thing they could have done. If they had declined establishing a kind of tenant-right, they had shown an indication to do as much as the difficult circumstances of the case permitted.
§ MR. B. OSBORNEwould not go into any discussion of the Bills; but it would be unjust and ungenerous on his part towards the noble Lord, after the imputation he had thrown on him on a former evening, if he did not express his sense of the clear, able, and cheering statement the noble Lord had made on the present occasion. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale in his regret that the compensation to tenants was not retrospective. Many things built by tenants and considered improvements by them, were deemed anything but improvements by the landlords. It would be impossible, with satisfaction to both parties, to make the compensation retroactive; all they could look to was amelioration for the future. The alteration of the stamp duties would have a good moral effect, and insure a revenue also; for, in many cases, the tenant now declined taking a lease only upon the ground of expense. He tendered the noble Lord his thanks for his present proposition, and asked when the Bills would be printed?
The EARL of LINCOLNsaid, there were some alterations not yet drawn up in form, but they would be prepared, if possible, that night; the Bills would certainly be printed to-morrow.
§ MR. SHAWcongratulated the House on the unanimity which prevailed in giving a favourable reception to the Bills of the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland. He would not say a word to disturb it. He had felt tempted to make a few observations on the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. John O'Connell); but he thought it better, considering the good spirit in which that preliminary discussion had been conducted, that they should not then commit themselves to any differences: no one, of course, would be bound to particular details; but he did hope the measure would be generally safe and satisfactory, and that, in its future stages, it would be debated with the same good feeling and temper it had been that night. He wished his noble Friend (Lord Lincoln) joy of having had so much success 293 upon that one of his first attempts at Irish legislation; and that, moreover, upon the very intricate and delicate question of the relation between landlord and tenant.
§ MR. WYSEasked if any provision had been made for securing the tenant from paying his rent to the head landlord if the middleman failed, though he might have paid it already to the middleman himself?
The EARL of LINCOLNthought though the law was as the hon. Gentleman stated, that, practically, the case was not of frequent occurrence; that, however, was not a reason why they should not interfere with it. He had recommended the introduction of a provision on the subject; but it had been struck out on the advice of an eminent lawyer connected with Ireland; he could not tell exactly the reason why it was struck out; but he would ascertain before the next discussion what were the objections to it.
SIR R. FERGUSONsaid, there was an Act of Parliament passed eleven years ago, by which a person who obtained a verdict in such a case could recover what he had paid, and 10 per cent on the amount.
§ MR. P. SCROPEconcurred in the approval that had been bestowed on the measures; but he should deceive the House if he led it to believe they would be sufficient. Nine persons out of ten who gave evidence before the Devon Commission understood by compensation to tenants, compensation for improvements already made, as well as for the future. Considering the enormous number of the tenant class in Ireland—upwards of 600,000—and that as a general rule all improvements were made by the tenant, he thought there would be very little satisfaction felt with it, unless the compensation was made retroactive. The late fatal affray at Birdhill arose from the refusal of a landlord to allow compensation for improvements to an outgoing tenant. That was only one case out of many. He believed it would readily be admitted that the rights of property in land were founded upon an assumption that the party who held the land, or those from whom he derived, had improved the land, and brought it out of a state of nature. Now, if the right of the landlord were founded upon the principle of improvement, how much more so were the rights of the tenant? With these observations, he should on the present occasion content himself; and he earnestly hoped that he had said nothing calculated to disturb the harmony 294 which seemed to prevail in the House upon this most important matter.
§ Leave given.