§ Order for Committee read:
§ House in Committee, Clauses 27 to 31 agreed to.
§ Clause 32 (Landlord
§ MR. LONGFIELDsaid, that in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hennessy), he wished to propose an Amendment. The Bill in its present form applied only to tenants from year to year. That, he thought, was limiting too much the scope of the Bill, and narrowing its beneficial character. Everything was to be done by agreement, and it was desirable to promote such arrangements between landlord and tenant, as tending to a good understanding between them. It was desirable to enable landlords and tenants to carry out improvements in regard to land not 1191 included originally in a lease. Cases would arise from time to time in which a tenant might wish to drain and otherwise improve a portion of land not included in his lease, and a slight change in the wording of the clause would enable him to do so. If such a power were given, the industry and wealth of the country would be greatly promoted. He, therefore, proposed that in part 3, the word "tenant" should mean all occupying tenants, holding from year to year, or under written leases or agreements (not containing stipulations as to the execution of any improvements) for a less term than three lives, or for thirty-one years.
MR. DEASYsaid, he did not see any objection to the clause, since nothing was to be done without agreement. He would propose, however, that the Amendment be not introduced at present; but if he found that there was no objection to it on the part of the Committee, he should be willing to insert the Amendment on bringing up the Report.
§ MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment for the present.
§ Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 33.
§ Clause 34 (Definition of "Improvements").
§ MR. MONSELLproposed, that the tenant should be entitled to receive a lump sum, instead of an annuity, from the landlord.
§ MR. CARDWELLopposed the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 35 was also agreed to.
§ Clause 36 (Consent of Landlord).
§ MR. BLAKEsaid, he thought that the tenant should have power to make improvements in spite of the landlord, in case the latter should refuse to give his consent, and that he should receive compensation for those improvements in the same manner as if they had been effected by previous agreement. He, therefore, proposed to add at the end of the clause words which would secure the tenant from eviction after commencing improvements except for nonpayment of rent (unless the Chairman considered there was unnecessary delay in the completion of the improvements), until the expiration of the longest period named for such improvements and building leases.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member was perfectly foreign to the object of the Bill, which 1192 was to secure certainty of compensation by way of annuity. The Amendment, indeed, would be fatal to the working of the Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. GEORGEproposed the insertion of words giving power to the landlord when works of improvement were proposed by the tenant to execute them, and to charge the tenant with interest at 5 per cent on the outlay, to be recoverable in the same manner and along with the rent, or to agree with the tenant.
MR. DEASYsaid, he did not object to the principle of the Amendment, but he would suggest that it should be carried out in a somewhat different manner, and observed that he would prepare a clause on the subject, which he hoped would meet the approval of the Committee.
§ MR. GEORGEsaid, he would not press his proposition on the understanding that the hon. and learned Gentleman would bring it up embodied in a new clause.
LORD NAASsaid, with regard to the suggestion for securing the tenant from eviction while carrying on an improvement, he thought that the tenant should be required to say beforehand within what time the improvement should be completed, and that during the interval he should be secured from eviction.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, he approved of giving the tenant such a security, but he thought it would be better to do so by a separate clause.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 37 (Statement of Expenditure to be lodged with the Clerk of the Peace),
§ MR. MAGUIREsaid, the clause as it stood at present was to the effect that the owner might, within three months after the service of a notice to improve from the tenant, serve the tenant with a notice in writing, stating that he disapproved of the proposed improvement, or of any part thereof; and the tenant who had received such notice should not be entitled to commence any improvement from which the owner had so dissented. That clause, even in its present form, was an improvement upon the original proposal of the Bill; but he feared that even as the clause now stood, it would give a sanction to a denial of all improvements on the part of a very large section of the Irish landlords. There was a certain class in Ireland who had the absurd apprehension that the tenant would be likely to improve them out of their property; there were many landlords in Ire- 1193 land who would deny that the land wanted improvement—who could not be brought to see why the tenant should need a comfortable house instead of a cabin—who would not admit that the soil required thorough draining, and would perceive no necessity for the making of a road; the fear of the expense would deter landlords sometimes from allowing the tenant to improve, and would urge them to act upon the very letter of the clause; there were landlords in Ireland, and not an inconsiderable number, who refused to grant leases because they wanted to have their tenants in their own power for political purposes; there were landlords who were actually envious of their tenants, and did not desire to see them prosper. That might seem to many a strange assertion, but he had known cases which rendered it incontrovertible—cases which he could bring before the notice of the House, and which had been substantiated upon oath in courts of justice. Thank God, such cases were not the majority. But, although the intention of the present Bill was to induce every man who had a desire, the hands and the means to work, to put forth all his energies for the improvement of the country, it must be remembered that in its present form it was a purely permissive Bill, and only a certain number of persons might adopt it. Believing then that there were landlords who would not avail themselves of the Bill, and who ought to avail of it, he begged leave to propose an Amendment which would make it, to a certain degree, compulsory upon them to do so. If the tenant were really anxious and able to improve the land, to build a better house, to erect out-offices, why should the landlord receive a legislative sanction in refusing to allow him to do so? Such a power conferred upon the landlord would be a terrible barrier to improvement, which never ought to have the sanction of the House. Was the tenant to be allowed to make improvements which would be unsuitable to the farm, and to compel his landlord to pay for them, in case of eviction? By no means—the improvements must be shown to be suitable, beneficial and necessary to the agricultural operations of the farm. If, in such a case, the landlord were still so foolish as to resist the improvements, let him be dealt with as if he were an idiot or a lunatic. Let the Legislature step in between him and his own folly, and tell him that he should not prevent the tenant from performing 1194 that improvement, which would result in the benefit of the landlord's own property. He appealed to the House on behalf of the general interests of Ireland, because he knew that there was a deadly stream of emigration increasing every day, and which without exaggeration, was taking away the bone and sinew of the country. He wanted to give those who remained at home a stake in the country—something to defend, something to attach them to the institutions of the land. If the House refused to give that security they would but perpetuate a spirit of discontent, and, as a man anxious to preserve peace in the country, he warned them that they would not be legislating in a wise spirit. It had been sometimes urged upon him by friends that the effect of the Amendment he proposed, would be, that the landlord would, where any difference arose, proceed at once to evict the tenant. But there could be only very few men who would thus dare to outrage public opinion by punishing a man simply for his desire to improve the land. Even admitting that there were found a dozen or twenty such cases in Ireland, yet hundreds of thousands would on the other hand be benefited. They were on the horns of a dilemma, but while one horn was very small, the other horn was very great. One would at worst but gore the individual, while the other would gore the nation. He asked nothing against the rights of the landlord, or the rights of property. The landlord's rights must be co-existent with the improvement of the property, and the increase of the productive powers of the land. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 10, line 41, to leave out from the word 'thereof' to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words 'if, upon the hearing of the case before the Chairman, it shall be proved that the proposed improvements are not necessary, or that they would be prejudicial to the estate, the tenant shall not be entitled to commence such improvements; but in case the Chairman shall decide that the proposed improvements are necessary, useful, and beneficial to the estate, the tenant shall be enabled to proceed with the improvements in the same way as if he had received the assent of the owner.
§ MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTentreated the hon. Member, if he wished to give the Bill a fair chance of passing, to withdraw his Amendment, for he was convinced that with such a clause it would never pass the other House.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he thought the Amendment was based altogether on a wrong idea of the rights of property. It would have the effect of changing the possession of property from one class of hands to another.
MR. DEASYsaid, this Amendment was an important one, and its success would involve the entire destruction of the Bill. It was precisely the question that had proved fatal to all the Bills that had been introduced on this subject. It proved fatal to the Bill introduced by the Government of the Earl of Derby, to the one introduced by the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen, and also to the Bill brought in by the present Government of Viscount Palmerston. He believed that if the Amendment could be carried into effect it would operate to the disadvantage of the tenant. The Bill applied to tenants at will, and the moment a tenant made the attempt to carry out improvements contrary to the will of his landlord the latter would at once use the powers which the law gave him, and proceed to eviction. He believed it would be impossible to pass any measure that would give a compulsory power to the tenant over the landlord.
§ MR. MONSELLsaid, he could not agree with the view taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Deasy), of this Amendment. The Bill of the Earl of Aberdeen's Government was thrown out not because it contained a clause of this nature, but because it contained a clause for retrospective compensation. The Report of the Devon Commission recommended the principle embodied in the Amendment, and the Earl of Derby himself supported it with all his eloquence in the other House, and therefore the weight of authority was in favour of the Amendment. He did not believe that any portion of the landlords of Ireland would act as the Attorney General had stated—cruelly evict tenants that wished to make improvments contrary to the will of their landlords. Such a statement was no better than a slander on the landlords of Ireland. After all, according to the Report of Dr. Phillimore, the proposed Amendment was a part of the Roman civil law in use in several countries on the Continent.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he supported the Amendment. He did so as the representative of an agricultural county in Ireland, and had no fear that he would be regarded as acting contrary to the interests of the landlords. By a previous clause 1196 the landlord had the power of making improvements himself, and why should it be regarded as an interference with his rights to give the tenant the power of making those improvements which his landlord refused to carry out? He believed that an overwhelming majority of the Irish landlords, wished to give leases to their tenants, but at the same time he was ready to admit the truth of what the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) had stated, that there were landlords, chiefly small proprietors, who refused to give leases from the fear that they would lose their influence over their tenants. The land should not be allowed to remain entirely at the caprice of some individuals, who might be averse to improvement. However, as he had opposed the proposal which made the chairman of Quarter Sessions the arbiter on other matters included in the Bill, he could not assent to that portion of the Amendment. He would suggest that the Landed Estates Court be the tribunal to decide, and he would then give his cordial support to the Amendment.
§ MR. BUTTsaid, the rest of the Bill, as compared with that Amendment, was utterly insignificant. The rest of the Bill was the landlords' Bill—this was the tenants'. This very Amendment, which to some hon. Members seemed now so objectionable, was no result of proletarian popular agitation. It was one of the results of the Devon Commission, and was embraced in a Bill introduced in the other House by the Earl of Derby in 1846, and in another introduced into the Commons by the Government of Viscount Palmerston. Opposition was not to be anticipated in the other House. If opposition there was it would be in the House of Commons, not in the House of Lords. Suppose a farm which was not so productive as it might be; the landlord was unable or unwilling to expend the necessary capital to make it productive; the tenant offered to do it himself; but, on acccount of some fancied rights of property, the landlord was to be allowed to prevent its being made as productive as it might be made for the general good of the country. He would ask whether hon. Gentlemen opposite who supported the Earl of Derby's Government were prepared to vote against the Amendment, which embodied the principle contained in the Earl of Derby's Bill. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. George) supported that Bill. Would they now find him acting the part of an opponent 1197 of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dungarvan; and was the noble Lord (Lord Naas), whose name was on the back of the Bill of the Earl of Derby's Government, prepared to oppose the Amendment? The emigration of the Irish had been spoken of. It had been urged that it was not owing to evictions. Agreed; it was not owing to actual eviction. But it was owing to the consciousness of the existing want of security to the tenant in the occupation of his land; and unless some such security was given as was contemplated by the Amendment before the Commitee he was of opinion that the present emigration would end in the extinction in Ireland of the old Celtic race.
§ SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, he was perfectly sure that the insertion of this Amendment would be fatal to the Bill, and the hon. Member for Dungarvan might as well move the rejection of the Bill on the third reading as propose its introduction. The principle of the measure was, that the landlord should have a voice in all the improvements that were made, and the Amendment, therefore, was in direct violation of that principle. He had been amazed at the vagueness and generality of the language used in regard to what we called improvements. The truth was, that many things which were called improvements would greatly deteriorate a property. What were called tenant-rights in Ireland meant, in the estimation of many of the tenants, nothing more than a subdivision of their farms among their children, and a return to that system which had plunged Ireland into the gulf from which, to a great extent, it was now emerging. The effect of the Amendment would be to compel the landlord to employ his capital in carrying out works of which he did not approve, and which would prevent him executing improvements that he believed would be really beneficial. Though he disapproved of the Bill as a whole, he thought that the clause which gave the landlord the power to control the improvements to be made involved a very valuable principle, and he trusted that the Amendment now proposed would be rejected by the Committee.
§ MR.VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he would beg to impress upon the Conservative landlords that there would not be the least danger in concurring in the Amendment with a little alteration, which he understood the hon. Mover would have no objection to make. The Amendment would not in- 1198 terfere with the rights of property, and would to a certain extent, if carried, settle the question for the present at least in the minds of the Irish people—an effect that would not be produced by the Bill in its present form, in consequence of the power given to serve a counter-notice. The Attorney General for Ireland said that the introduction of the Amendment would ensure the rejection of the Bill in "another place;" certainly it would if it would interfere with the rights of property; and, therefore, he wished to impress upon the Conservative landlords that it would not have any such effect. He suggested the Amendment of the Amendment by the introduction of a provision giving the landlord an option of making the improvements if the assistant barrister should decide that improvements were necessary.
§ MR. GEORGEsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) had attempted to cast an imputation on his consistency in connection with this question. He knew nothing in the history of the hon. and learned Member's political consistency in that House, or in his political morality that entitled him to catechise him (Mr. George) on his political conduct. The hon. and learned Member alluded to the measure which was brought forward by the ex-Chancellor of Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) when they were connected with the Government of the Earl of Derby. He begged to state that he gave that Bill his general approbation; but that he guarded himself at the time against being supposed to favour all its details. He held an independent opinion then, as he did now, upon the important question submitted to the consideration of Parliament. He, for one, objected to the transfer of the control of his property from himself to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions. He was averse to being dragged, at the instigation of his tenant, before an assistant barrister, there to produce his title deeds, and to show the reason why he did and why he did not grant a lease, or assent to projected alterations which might or might not be improvements. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would adhere with fidelity to the great principles of the Bill; but if they agreed to the Amendment he did not think they could carry the measure by any majority in that House, and from previous experience they might expect that it would not be approved of elsewhere.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, he had no complaint to make as to the manner in which the hon. Member for Dungarvan had brought forward his Amendment; but he thought it exceedingly doubtful whether his proposal would be one advantageous to the tenant. If they continued the power of eviction, every compulsory power they gave to the tenant over the landlord, would operate to the injury of the former. It was of no use to refer to former Bills. This they must make up their minds to, if they wished the present Bill to pass—they must avoid compulsion and retrospection. Where there was a willing landlord and a willing tenant, improvement could take place; and where a limited landlord was unable to make improvements, the clause set him free from the fetters of settlements, and gave him the power of a fee-simple landlord; it gave to the family that benefit of the settlement, and gave to the present occupier the benefit of the freehold. It would also render it impossible in future for a tenant who was evicted to lose the benefit of the bonâ fide improvements that he had made. These two advantages would be gained by the Bill, and he earnestly pressed the Committee not to destroy these principles by the introduction of a compulsory power over the landlord by the tenant.
§ LORD FERMOYsaid, he did not believe that the landlords of Ireland were such bad men or such fools as to evict tenants because they were anxious to improve their estates. He would support the Amendment, notwithstanding that some Members seemed to think it would endanger the Bill in that place where there was very little redemption for anything that was good.
§ MR. CONOLLYsaid, that as a landlord he should most cordially vote for the Amendment. He would compel the landlord, in. certain cases, to make improvements; and, in doing so, he would not be doing him any injustice. He knew there were landlords who would prefer to sit down with their hands in their pockets, and very little else in their pockets besides their hands, rather than comply with the just requirements of the tenant. In supporting the Amendment, he was not acting against the interest of his class; because, if they understood their interest, they must see that the improvements of their estates would be for their advantage.
§ SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he thought there was nothing in the proposition of the hon. Member for Dungar- 1200 van that should excite alarm in the mind of the most sensitive stickler for the rights of property. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) had not stated that the introduction of the Amendment would be fatal to the Bill, and therefore he would give it his support.
§ Question put, "That the words 'and no tenant,' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 140; Noes 48: Majority 92.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again on Tuesday next, at Twelve of the Clock.