HC Deb 16 June 1847 vol 93 cc630-45

Order of the Day read for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Tenants (Ireland) Bill.

MR. S. CRAWFORD

called the attention of the House to the position in which the debate stood. On the former occasion when the Bill had been before the House, he had moved the second reading on the 28th of April, at a late period of the evening, in the hope that he would induce hon. Members interested in the question to take the debate when going into Committee. It had subsequently been moved by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. B. Osborne), that the Bill be read that day six months; an adjournment of the discussion then took place; and as he (Mr. S. Crawford) had not before made any statement of the objects of the Bill, it now became his duty to explain the grounds on which he asked the House to allow the Bill to be now read a second time. The Bill was introduced to effect a change in that system which at present prevailed in the south of Ireland; to give security to occupying tenants; and by bringing about a most desirable alteration in the existing relative condition of tenants and proprietors, to benefit the entire agricultural community. It was very evident that there was something wrong in the system hitherto pursued, inasmuch as the necessity of some such measure as this was generally admitted among all persons conversant with the circumstances of the population engaged in the cultivation of land in the sister kingdom. One of the principal ends which he desired to attain by the Bill, was to put a prohibition upon the levying of distresses without full previous notice having been given to the party proceeded against. Up to this time there had been no such condition imposed upon landlords; and the result had been, a state of things disgraceful to the country, and reflecting most discreditably upon the Legislature. The hon. Member quoted the evidence of a great number of witnesses examined before various commissions appointed to inquire into the condition of Ireland, to show that in the absence of such, a restrictive measure as that now under discussion, the landlords, in a great majority of instances, had been encouraged to neglect all social considerations in the subletting of land, and to take steps only to extract from their tenants, in the most unjust manner, the largest possible amount of rent. The principle of establishing by law the right of compensation to tenants for improvements effected by them in their holdings, had been sanctioned by Lord Devon's report. Resolutions in its favour had been adopted at various meetings of landlords and tenants in various parts of Ireland. The like course was pursued at an important meeting which not long since took place in Dublin, and at which nineteen Peers and thirty-five Members of Parliament were present. The principle had likewise been embodied in two Bills brought forward by the late Government, one of which was introduced in that House, and the other in the House of Peers; and in 1841 he himself submitted to the House another Bill, the object of which was to secure compensation to tenants, though the late period of the Session at which that measure was brought forward prevented it from being carried into effect. It must, therefore, be evident to the House that the principle of the Bill of which he was now about to move the second reading, was supported by high authority, and had been adopted in the Bills framed by the late Government. He had hoped that Government would have introduced a measure on the subject; but as they had not done so, he ventured to bring the question once more before the House in the shape of a Bill. Another hon. Member had introduced a Bill having reference to the same subject, which had been allowed to go to a second reading, and therefore he could not suppose that the same privilege would not be extended to his measure. The title of the Bill declared it to be a measure to secure the rights of occupying tenants in Ireland, and thereby to promote employment. That, undoubtedly, would be its effect; and he ventured to assert, that no measure which the House could adopt would promote the employment of labour- ers in Ireland to an equal degree with his Bill. The number of acres under cultivation in Ireland was 13,465,000. Now, supposing his Bill was to stimulate improvement to the extent of 1l. per acre, the result would be to put into circulation a sum amounting to nearly 14,000,000l. It was a low calculation to estimate the sum which would be expended in improvements at 1l. per acre; it was more likely to be 4l. or 5l. It might be said, that the great body of the Irish tenants had not capital to enable them to effect improvements; but they had labour, which was the source of all capital. He had proved the preamble of his Bill; and the necessary consequence was, that the Legislature should pass a measure to protect the tenant in his right. The first clause embodied the principle of the Bill; and the mode in which he proposed to carry it into effect was by arbitration. That, however, was a matter of detail which could be considered in Committee; and he would not insist upon that precise mode of giving effect to the principle of the Bill, if a better one could be suggested. The present measure differed from the Bills introduced by the late Government in this respect, that it did not, like them, make it a distinct stipulation that a tenant must make no improvements to which the landlord did not assent, or must make them at his own cost. To clog the measure with such a condition, would in effect set aside the tenant right as it existed in Ulster; and no tenant right which fell short of that would satisfy the people of Ireland. In the county of Down, no public money was expended; the people were not dependent on England; they were able to do what was necessary for their own subsistence. It was the tenant right that conduced to the comfort and well-being of the people. He believed it would greatly increase the production of Ireland by the impulse it would give to better cultivation. The people of Ireland were spoken of as idle and ignorant; but their poverty and ignorance were caused by maltreatment, and the want of security as to the result of their labour. No one would accuse him of a desire to injure the interests of the class to which he belonged; he had made similar arrangements with his own tenants; and he only asked the House to adopt what he believed to be just. The hon. Gentleman concluded by hoping the House would agree to the second reading.

MR. MONAHAN

said, it was necessary the House should see some great practical object to be gained from this Bill, before it could be induced, at this period of the Session, to involve itself in legislation upon so complicated a subject as the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland. He certainly wished to see the interests of the occupying tenant protected; but he expected much more from voluntary arrangement and the good feeling of the landlord, than from any legislative enactment. He did not much object to the preamble of the Bill; but he was of opinion that the provision for compensation would not work so well as the hon. Member anticipated. By the provision as it at present stood, if the landlord let a piece of land for one or two years, expecting to get it back at the expiration of that term, he might find that the tenant had laid out a large sum of money bearing no proportion to the term of years; and he might be called upon to pay a sum for compensation on receiving back his land, which possibly he might be unable to pay. That would be manifestly unjust. In his opinion, any measure for affording compensation to the tenant, should bear some relation to the value of the land, and to the term of years for which it was held. The machinery also for carrying out the Bill appeared to be very imperfect. He thought the subject was one requiring very serious consideration at the proper period; but certainly this was not the proper period, and he should move therefore that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

MR. BICKHAM ESCOTT

said, the principle of the Bill was one of the greatest importance; but, though it was not likely the measure could have been sufficiently matured to pass into a law in the present Parliament, he thought it ought not to be treated like the Bill of the hon. Member for Berkshire, which applied the same principle to England. From the beginning that Bill was opposed as if it were a sham measure, meant only to amuse certain farmers who thought themselves betrayed and deserted, and who looked to it as a compensation for some legislative protection they had lost, but was never intended to become law. What was the object of the present measure? To secure the rights of the landlord, the tenant, and the labourer, in their respective positions as owners, occupiers, and tillers of the soil. No measure they could devise would give such an impulse to employment in Ireland as this, by inducing the occupiers to lay out more money in the cultivation of the land than they would do at present, because they had no permanent right or interest in the land. He trusted that the House would read the Bill a second time, and take the discussion on particular objections to it in Committee. The hon. Member for Rochdale was not wedded to the Bill as it now stood, but was anxious to go into Committee, where such alterations could be made as the House might deem advisable. He hoped that, whether they were able to carry the Bill to the third reading or not, the House would, at all events, establish the principle of the Bill; and a future Parliament would find themselves called upon to carry through a measure that he believed would prove of more advantage to Ireland than any other, not excepting the Poor Law itself.

SIR J. WALSH

deprecated the idea of going into a subject of such great importance and of so complicated a nature with the view of deciding a mere abstract proposition. If the measure before the House were to be of benefit to both the parties whose interests it affected, it must depend altogether on the nature of the details; and, therefore, it would be rash and inexpedient at this period of the Session to decide upon it merely as an abstract naked principle. In all other relations of life—in all other trades and professions—it had always been considered that those engaged in them were much better judges of their own interest than any other parties; and nothing was deemed so impracticable as for the House of Commons to say what was the proper course for those parties to pursue in managing their affairs. It would be regarded as contrary to all the principles of political economy and free trade if that House was to undertake to legislate as to what line of conduct any description of traders, such as coach makers or bakers, ought to pursue in their avocations; and why, then, should they do so in the case of landlord and tenant? By such a proceeding they would embark in a course that could only lead to an increase of the evils they were endeavouring to remove. In this Bill the Member for Rochdale had introduced a measure objectionable in principle, still more objectionable in detail, and by a speech still more objectionable than either. He had brought forward charges against the Irish landlords so criminatory in their character, that if they were established, the public would he led to the conclusion, that the whole of the pro- perty and rights of those landlords was held by a downright imposition upon the community. He did not mean to accuse the hon. Member of intentionally calumniating the Irish landlords; but his charges contained the grossest exaggerations; and he maintained that if they had been the unjust oppressors he had represented them to be, their oppressions would not have been so long borne, but justice would long ere now have overtaken them. So far, however, from the sentiments of the hon. Member being borne out by facts, he held that the Irish landlords had made greater sacrifices than the landlords of England had ever done for the benefit of their tenants. The hon. Member charged the minute subdivisions of land in Ireland upon the landlords. In many cases this might be true. He did not not deny that 40s. freeholds were created for political purposes; but, generally speaking, this was not the case. The Irish landlords were less swayed by an ambition to make their properties available for political than for pecuniary objects. Neither were the middlemen the great cause of these subdivisions of land which were found in Ireland. The real difficulty both landlords and middlemen in Ireland had, lay in the disposition and habits and tendencies of the population of Ireland. They were accustomed to look to land as their only source of subsistence, and not to trade or manufactures. Early marriages were universal; and these were almost invariably accompanied with the subdivision of some farm already too small; so that the landlord, when he first heard of the subdivisions, found that if he dispossessed the parties, he could only do so by throwing a young couple and young family destitute upon the world. This was the real cause of the evils arising from the subdivision of land in Ireland. He had the most perfect conviction that in accomplishing the improvement of Ireland, the landed proprietors must be the principal agents; and this could only be effected by keeping up a community of interest between both landlord and tenant in the land. The landlord was placed with respect to his tenant in a sort of double relation. As the mere holder of the soil he was entitled to the rent; but also as a capitalist, contributing a certain proportion of the outlay necessary to the cultivation and improvement of the soil, he became entitled to a proportion of the profits that were received from it; therefore the more inducement they held out to the landlord to embark along with his tenant capital for the cultivation of the land, the more they increased the produce, and established a better footing between landlord and tenant. If, however, they attempted to regulate by law the arrangements between the landlord and the tenant, the consequence would be, that the former would be afraid to embark their capital either for building purposes on farms, or for the general improvement of the soil. He would assuredly employ his capital in other ways, and decline to embark it in the improvement of his own property, if he was to be subjected to conditions that would give him only an uncertain interest in the advantages which were to be derived from it. He must express his sincere satisfaction that Her Majesty's Ministers had postponed the consideration of this subject till a time when they could consider it in a more deliberate spirit, and give to it that attention which a measure of such importance demanded at their hands.

MR. LABOUCHERE

was unwilling to give a silent vote on this question, lest his silence should be liable to misconstruction, though he would not enter at any length into the various topics bearing on this very important subject, especially after the speech which they had heard from his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Monahan). If the question was, whether it was or was not expedient that that House should consider the propriety of some legislation to improve the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland—if there was nothing but that question before the House—he could not refuse his assent to the Motion; for there could be no doubt it was desirable that some legislative enactment should be matured by which those relations should be improved. Such a course would be quite consistent with the sentiments expressed by Her Majesty's Government. His noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury had stated at the beginning of the Session, that the Government intended to bring under the consideration of the House, a safe and satisfactory measure on this most difficult and important question. That measure was delayed till the noble Lord who then filled the situation of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (the lamented Earl of Besborough), who had paid particular attention to the subject, should be able to attend in his place in the House of Lords, when he could recommend to Parliament such a measure as, on the whole, would be most beneficial. The delay, therefore, had been owing to the unfortunate event which had deprived this country and Ireland of the services of Lord Besborough; and the great pressure of Irish business during the Session had reluctantly compelled the Government to give up the intention they had entertained of submitting a measure on their own responsibility to Parliament on the subject—a subject which was as complicated and difficult as it was important. He agreed with those Gentlemen who thought that any false step on this subject—any measure merely passed for the purpose of gaining popularity among the tenantry of Ireland, which would shake the foundations of property in that country, and deprive the landlord of all inducement to embark his capital for the improvement of his land and the encouragement of his tenantry—would be attended with the most disastrous consequences. At the same time, he could not agree with those who had argued that no measure of this kind should be introduced. He thought, looking to the present state of the relations between landlord and tenant in many parts of Ireland—looking at the jealousy and estrangements that unfortunately existed between two classes of society that ought to have the deepest interest in, and the best understanding with, one another—looking at all the circumstances of Ireland—he believed that measures might be devised of a nature that would be objectionable in a country circumstanced like this, which, if maturely considered, might produce beneficial consequences in Ireland. He confessed that he was prepared to approach the consideration of this subject with reference not only to general principles, but with reference to the special circumstances of Ireland. He believed a measure might be framed that would avoid shaking the security of landed property in Ireland, while, at the same time, security would be given for the profitable outlay of capital in judicious improvements of the soil, and encouragements given to tenants; who, he was afraid, were not at present, in some parts of Ireland, so much encouraged as they ought to be. But he could not admit that this was the question they had to decide on the present occasion. A Bill had been submitted to the House by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale; and he need scarcely say that he, for one, could have no prejudice against that Bill on account of the source from which it came. He admitted that any measure of this kind, coming from a Gentleman who, like his hon. Friend, was an extensive Irish landlord, and known for the kindness and consideration with which he acted towards his tenantry, had a right to meet a favourable construction from that House. But, although he confessed that he was disposed to look at the measure with a desire to give it the most favourable consideration, yet, after the best attention he could bestow upon it, he did not think it one which he was prepared to state to the House they could hope to put into such a shape that Parliament would give its sanction to it. The hon. Member for Winchester admitted, that, looking at the Bill itself, there was no prospect that it could become an Act of Parliament in the present Session; but that, he added, was no reason why this House should not sanction the principle. But he considered that this was a very dangerous course in relation to such a measure. It would give rise to misconstruction and alarm amongst the landlords of Ireland, and excite unbounded expectations amongst the tenantry; and, there by, so far from affording facilities, would create obstacles to another similar measure. He, therefore, assured the hon. Member for Rochdale, that if he objected to the second reading of this Bill, it was neither from any personal disrespect to him, nor because be did not agree with him that the subject deserved the serious consideration of Parliament; but because, having examined the Bill, he was satisfied that it did not afford materials for framing out of it a measure which that House ought to pass and send to the other House of Parliament, with a view of its becoming the law of the land; because he did not think it could be made a useful and satisfactory measure, or promote what ought to be the object of such a Bill, namely, to provide a proper security to the tenantry of Ireland, and at the same time promote the cultivation of the soil; but it was because he saw in it the seeds of litigation and disputes. He did not know that he need trouble the House with any further observations. If the hon. Member for Rochdale persisted in going on with the Bill, it would be his duty to record his vote against the second reading of it.

MR. E. B. ROCHE

tendered his humble thanks to the hon. Member for Rochdale for having introduced this Bill. The great evils of Ireland resulted from the unsettled state of the relations between landlord and tenant. That being the case, he wanted to know why it was that Her Majesty's Ministers had not been prepared to come forward with a measure for remedying this great source of evil? In both England and Ireland, there was no body of men who had been so deluded as the farmers. Upon this question of the relations between landlord and tenant, they had been deluded. There were two parties in that House whom he accused of deceiving the farmers of Ireland. In the first place, Her Majesty's Ministers had deceived them: they had made promises at the beginning of the Session, and now they were at the end of it and their promises had not been fulfilled. The other party in the House of whom he complained, on the part of his constituents in Ireland, was the party called the "Irish party"—called "Irish," he supposed, because they had not fulfilled any one thing they had promised to do. If this Bill were thrown out on the second reading, the excitement of the public mind in Ireland would not be relieved by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had spoken as usual in a very kind and conciliatory tone, but had promised nothing, and pledged himself to nothing. That right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the question which the Bill sought to settle was a very important one; and he concluded his speech by declaring his intention to vote against it. By giving the Bill a second reading, the House would be affirming the principle that the relation between landlord and tenant in Ireland was in such a condition as to call for the interference of the Legislature. That was all that the promoters of the Bill required. Whatever was objectionable in the measure, could easily he altered and modified in the Committee up stairs. He implored, therefore, of the House to give the Bill a second reading. If they refused to do so, the result would be to impress the Irish people more strongly than ever with the conviction that, no matter what promises might be held out to them at this side of the water—no matter how rich the vision might be with which English statesmen might seek to allure their imaginations—there was but one hope for Ireland, namely, the restoration of her domestic Legislature. His hon. Friend below him said that he heartily wished they had it; but it was to be hoped that the hon. Gentleman would attest the sincerity of his words by voting for it when the proper opportunity should arrive. How could the people of Ireland have confidence in that House, when that House played with them in such a manner? Deceived by the Whig party, for whom they had made such sacrifices, and for whom the frieze-coated voters travelled miles upon miles to the hustings that they might carry them on their shoulders into power, and deceived also by that new party who started into existence to redress all abuses, and to lead public opinion in Ireland, the Irish people would be impelled irresistibly to the conclusion that it was idle to expect justice from the Imperial Parliament—idle to rely on the professions of pretending friends—and that there was no hope on earth for them except in repeal.

MR. SHAW

said, that he had little more to do than express his general concurrence in the reasons which had been given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, against the second reading of the Bill. He respected the character and the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Bill, and gave him credit for the best motives in so doing. He was not unfriendly to a principle of fair compensation to the tenant for the permanent improvements he might make upon the land; but he would desire to see the principle founded, as far as it was possible, upon voluntary arrangement between landlord and tenant. The hon. Member for Winchester represented the hon. Member for Rochdale as not bound to any of the details of the present measure; but the hon. Member himself said, that he did consider it essential to the principle of the Bill to retain the retrospective operation of the compensation clauses; and also that the so-called "tenant right," in Ulster, now a matter of voluntary agreement between landlord and tenant, should be converted into a legal right on the part of the tenant. To both of those provisions he entirely objected. He wished also to explain that the law of landlord and tenant, under the civil-bill ejectment code, in Ireland, was not altogether as might be inferred from the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. S. Crawford). It was true, that in one sense a fifteen days' notice and a small expense would suffice for the purposes of a civil-bill ejectment; but there must, moreover, be a regular six months' notice to quit in case of an over holding tenant; and in other cases, either a full year's rent in arrear, or an absolute desertion of the premises by the tenant; and he had always been of opinion that the system in question, entailing very small comparative cost, was fully as advantageous to the tenant as to the landlord. With regard to the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that two parties in that House, namely, the Government and the "Irish" party, had greatly disappointed the Irish people, he had only to say that he was not bound to defend the Government, nor was he in any other way a member of, or connected with, what had been called the Irish party, than that he had at all times expressed and acted upon the determination to co-operate with any Irish Member, without reference to party or to politics, in promoting the general welfare of Ireland; but he could not help saying, that there was a third party which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roche) had not mentioned, and to which the hon. Gentleman belonged, which had more egregiously disappointed the Irish people than any other. He (Mr. Shaw) meant the Repeal party. On the whole, he gave credit to the Government for the straightforward course they had taken in opposing the present Bill on the second reading, instead of consenting to go into Committee, without the possibility of any good result; and he would, if the hon. Member (Mr. Crawford) should divide the House, vote with the Government against the second reading.

MR. M. J. O'CONNELL

said, that when Gentlemen talked of the lateness of the Session, they should recollect that this debate had been adjourned since the 28th of April. he confessed that he had been considerably disappointed, first at the cautious manner in which the right hon. Recorder of Dublin had stated that he did not altogether object to the principle of giving some compensation to tenants; and, secondly, at the over-cautious manner in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) had dealt with the principle. If this had been a new question, raised for the first time, he should not have been surprised at this caution; but he remembered that, four years ago, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had requested the hon. Member for Rochdale to withdraw a Bill upon this subject, on the ground that the Government of that day were about to inquire into the subject. That inquiry commenced in the winter of 1843; and the reports and evidence were laid before the House in 1845, accompanied by recommendations from the Commissioners of great importance. But, with a single exception, all that series of blue books had been as useless as if they had never been in existence. After the principle of compensation had been sanctioned by the respectable authority of the Commissioners, he thought the House ought to have had from Her Majesty's Government something more decisive than the declaration from the right hon. Gentleman, that he did not despair that something might be done upon, the subject. However, it appeared that they had not done so. A circumstance had occurred, to which no one could refer without feeling the most sincere regret. To Lord Besborough this subject had been entrusted, and no man was more fit to have brought it forward. He hoped the event that had happened would be a warning to the Government not to entrust such a subject again to any one individual. It had been said that the landlords of Ireland ought to give encouragement to their tenants; but this could not be effectually done unless the land were allowed to remain in the tenants' possession for a period sufficiently long to admit of their making improvements, and unless, also, security were given to the tenants that when those improvements were made, they should receive an adequate compensation. Instead, therefore, of looking upon this measure as one calculated to be injurious to the landlord, he was of opinion that it would be conducive to the personal and even selfish interests of the landlords. This being the object which his hon. Friend wished to carry into effect, he should give him his most cordial support.

MR. TRELAWNY

remarked that the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. E. B. Roche) had accused the Government of having deluded the people of Ireland; but, in his opinion, this Bill was a complete delusion, for it held out promises to the tenants of Ireland which could not possibly be fulfilled.

SIR H. W. BARRON

said, that a large number of the proprietors of Ireland asked for this Bill; and it was matter of surprise that the hon. Member for the county of Cork should have thought proper to accuse the Irish party, as he was pleased to designate those Irish Members who deemed it their duty to confer together for promoting the common interests of their country, with having deluded and deceived the Irish people. It was unbecoming of the hon. Member, who remained at home in Cork, instead of attending to his Parliamentary duties in that House. And when the hon. Member talked of great promises on the banks of the Liffey, and small performances on the banks of the Thames, he (Sir H. W. Barron) would remind the hon. Member that great promises had been made in Cork, and there had been small performances in Westminster. He approved of the principle of the Bill, though he considered its details objectionable. These could be amended in Committee, and he should support the second reading.

MR. YOUNG

considered the present question to be surrounded by a vast amount of difficulty. This was evident from the failure of former attempts to legislate upon it. Lord Stanley, when he was a Member of the Government of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, introduced a measure upon this subject, but it was withdrawn; and at a subsequent period the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk (the Earl of Lincoln) also brought forward a Bill having the same object in view, but that too was allowed to drop. This could only be accounted for by the fact that the subject itself was inherently difficult and complicated. Throughout the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Sharman Crawford), two very distinct subjects had been constantly mentioned together, and very much confused with each other: the one, due compensation to the tenant for a bonâ fide outlay in improvements in the land; and the other, fixity of tenure. It was very desirable that these two questions should be separated. No one opposed compensation for money laid out in improvements; and the only difficulty that existed was the mode of ascertaining what that outlay really was. But this Bill did not provide any means by which the actual improvements and their real value might be ascertained. There should be a preliminary valuation of the lands on the tenant's taking a farm; but this was not proposed to be done, so that everybody who chose to call anything an improvement might charge his landlord what he pleased. Every tenant who took a farm did so with his eyes open; he was competent to know its actual condition; and he was aware that if there were the necessary buildings upon it, he would have a higher rent to pay than if there were not. The whole effect of the Bill would be to make the tenants, in fact, owners, and the present owners merely rent-chargers on the land. The second preamble was contrary to the fact and to history: the reason why the tenants of Ulster paid a high rent for land was be- cause they had nothing else to live upon; but if there were such a thing as payment for labour on farms in Ireland, the tenant-right would disappear. Looking at this clause, it would seem that the tenant-right extended over the whole of Ireland; but it was partial even in the parts where it existed; and in Meath, with regard to the larger farms, the right did not exist at all; and if the Bill had the effect of continuing the present occupiers of land in their existing condition, the Legislature would inflict the greatest evil upon Ireland. The landlords of Ireland were anxious to improve the condition of the tenants; but they had great difficulties to contend with, and he excepted the resident landlords especially from the charge of not having done their duty. Upon the one-fifth who were resident all complaints fell, for whenever they thwarted a job or a popularity-hunter, they were opposed at home and complained of in that House.

MR. BOURKE

defended the hon. Member for Cork for his absence in Ireland, where he had been attending to his duty as a landlord; and admitted that the Irish party, to which he had himself belonged, had done wrong in rejecting the proposal of the noble Member for Lynn for benefiting his country.

MR. LEFROY

was of opinion that Ministers had adopted a most proper and discreet course in opposing a measure which, if passed, would be far from serving the interests of Ireland: he could not understand how the adoption of it could benefit any party in that country. At the same time he was not opposed to such a provision as had been adverted to by the Secretary for Ireland. From the Bill under consideration the tenants would be led to indulge hopes that never could be realized. Supposing Government to approve of the principle of the measure, they ought not to support the second reading unless they could concur in most of the details.

MR. ROSS

would have voted in favour of the principle of the Bill, if there were any hope that the details could have been settled in the course of the present Session. There was no possibility of doing so; and a measure which Ministers were very desirous to pass, had not yet been even introduced. He admitted that he could not agree in any of the details of the measure under consideration.

MR. M'CARTHY

said, he would only delay the House while he alluded to a few of the objections that had been raised to this Bill. The first of these objections was, that it was now too late to press it forward; but surely the fault of the delay that had taken place rested with Her Majesty's Government themselves, and not with the hon. Member for Rochdale. The next objection was, that no compensation was to be given, except on the termination of a tenancy. That surely was not an objection worthy of much attention, for it was clearly only when the landlord determined the tenancy that he ought to be called upon for compensation. Another of the objections urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland was, that arbitration would be very expensive. So it no doubt would, if lawyers were to arbitrate; but he could not see why such questions should not be left to the decision of two or three honest men who were not lawyers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of Dublin complained that the Bill had a retrospective operation; but ho, for one, could not see how such a measure could be just or useful unless it were retrospective in its effect. He should give his most cordial support to the second reading.

MR. POULETT SCROPE

did not see that the House could occupy itself for the; short time it had to sit before six o'clock, with a more important question than that before them. If they wished to improve Ireland, they could not do so more effectually than by giving a stimulus to the occupying tenantry of Ireland to develop the resources of the country and increase its natural productions by every means in their power. To effect such an object, he considered the security which this Bill was intended to effect, absolutely essential. It had been objected, that if such a Bill were passed for Ireland, a similar Bill should also be adopted for this country. He could not agree in that argument. There were essential differences between the condition of the two countries, two of the principal of which arose from the facts that in Ireland the average extent of farms was but five acres, and that in this country it was customary for the landlords to effect all the great improvements themselves.

On the question, that the word "now" stand part of the Question, the House divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 112: Majority 87.

List of the AYES.
Barron, Sir H. W. Bowring, Dr.
Blake, M. J. Boyd, J.
Bodkin, J. J. Castlereagh, Visct.
Collett, J. O'Brien, J.
Colville, C. R. O'Brien, T.
Corbally, M. E. O'Connell, M. J.
Escott, B. Pechell, Capt.
Fielden, J. Perfect, R.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Scrope, G. P.
Law, hon. C. E. Wawn, J. T.
Lawless, hon. C. Yorke, H. R.
M'Carthy, A.
Mitchell, T. A. TELLERS.
Morris, D. Crawford, W. S.
Norreys, Sir D. J. Roche, R.
List of the NOES.
Adderley, C. B. Hawes, B.
Allix, J. P. Heneage, G. H. W.
Arkwright, G. Henley, J. W.
Bankes, G. Hodgson, R.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Houldsworth, T.
Bentinck, Lord G. Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Blackstone, W. S. Howard, P. H.
Bodkin, W. H. Hudson, G.
Boldero, H. G. Hughes, W. B.
Borthwick, P. Hussey, T.
Brown, W. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Browne, hon. W. Jones, Capt.
Buller, C. Labouchere, rt. hon, H.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Lefroy, A.
Bunbury, W. M. Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.
Burke, T. J. Mainwaring, T.
Busfeild, W. Marshall, W.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Carew, W. H. P. Milnes, W,
Christie, W. D. Mitcalfe, H.
Clifton, J. T. Monahan, J. H.
Clive, Visct. Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Codrington, Sir W. Mundy, E. M.
Cole, hon. H. A. Norreys, Lord
Corry, rt. hon. H. O'Brien, A. S.
Craig, W. G. Pakington, Sir J.
Deedes, W. Plumridge, Capt.
Denison, J. E. Polhill, F.
Dennistoun, J. Rashleigh, W.
Dick, Q. Rendlesham, Lord
Dickinson, F. H. Repton, G. W. J.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Rice, E. R.
Duncan, G. Richards, R.
East, Sir J. B. Rolleston, Col.
Farnham, E. B. Romilly, J.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Ross, D. R.
Floyer, J. Round, J.
Forbes, W. Russell, Lord J.
Forster, M. Rutherfurd, A.
Frewen, C. H. Seymer, H. K.
Fuller, A. E. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Gaskell, J. M. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Trelawny, J. S.
Gill, T. Verner, Sir W.
Gladstone, Capt. Vesey, hon. T.
Goring, C. Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Walpole, S. H.
Granby, Marq. of Walsh, Sir J. B.
Greene, T. Ward, H. G.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Wilshere, W.
Grogan, E. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Halsey, T. P. Wodehouse, E.
Hamilton, W. J. Worcester, Marq. of
Hamilton, Lord C. Young, J.
Hanmer, Sir J.
Harcourt, G. G. TELLERS.
Harris, hon. Capt. Tufnell, H.
Hastie, A. Parker, J.

Bill put off for six months.