HL Deb 16 April 1812 vol 22 cc393-400
Earl Stanhope

rose to make his promised motion on this subject He protested against the idea of making a long speech; for when the object was plain and clear, the explanation might and ought to be brief. He had to call the attention of the House to a train of sufferings not exceeded, perhaps not paralleled, by those of the slave,—in all cases equally unjust, and in most equally attended with horrid and calamitous circumstances. He alluded to the stale of the Irish Peasantry under the present laws, as they related to the recovery of rent. In that country there were gradations and classes of those pernicious holders called middlemen; and the distress for ail their consecutive rents might be levied upon the peasant who tilled the ground. He might thus have to pay his own rent, and the rents of ten people above him. This was a genuine oppression, and it had occurred as such to other people's minds. The noble earl here alluded to a correspondence between two great law authorities, which he had seen, and which described the practice as likely to be highly oppressive. The consequence of enforcing the law, according to the present system, was the certain beggary of the tenant, whose ordinary rent was the utmost that his labour could extract from the ground, and who, of course, when a double or a triple rent was demanded from him, had no resource but abandoning all, and wandering to beg his bread, with his wife, and not unfrequently, an infirm and infant family. Was it to be wondered at, that in a country where there were no poor's rates, such a man should be discontented, as he must be beggared? It might not be so here, where there were poor's rates, and where the whole parish would exclaim against the landlord whose cruelty should expose them to such a burthen of pauperism: but, in Ireland, this happened frequently, the peasant was forced to seek his daily bread from cabin to cabin; and was it to be wondered at, that he should seize the first rusty pitchfork, and use it vindictively at the moment, or treasure up his revenge till it could be certain? The noble earl said he would instance a case communicated to him, on the credit of a great land-proprietor. He should arrange the classes of lessors in the order of the alphabet, and they stood as follow: B paid to A, the original lessor, a rent of 90l.: B let this to C for the sum of 700l. C to D for the sum of 750l.; and D to about twenty tenants, who might be called E, for about 940l. The whole of these sums might be demanded by distress, from the tenants E as the law now stood. Was there any thing more necessary to be said on the subject? The noble earl said he was most anxious to see this grievance taken up by the legislature: but, in bringing it before them, he had only the merit of intention,—the great merit was due to counsellor O'Dedy, the author of a most excellent and feeling pamphlet upon the subject.—He would then state as the substance of the first clause of his Bill, that it should be enacted, that no remedy of distress should he against any tenant but: at the suit of his immediate lessor, saving the original lessor of the land. The second clause was one which provided, that what-ever sum the tenant paid to the original lessor by distress, should be accounted as part payment to his immediate lessor. The noble earl proceeded to reason at considerable length upon this part of the Bill. He trusted, that nobody would be so whimsical as to say that the original landlord would be injured by this proposal, when in reality, he would be benefited. By this measure the under middle-man could not distrain till he had paid the original rent, and the other could not distrain at all. He concluded by moving, that the Bill be read a first time.

Lord Redesdale

admitted the existence of the evil, but whether an adequate remedy could be applied, he very much doubted. While he resided in Ireland, his mind had been very much occupied with this subject. He had often reflected upon it, and endeavoured to find out some suitable remedy; but it involved so many important considerations, and was altogether a matter of so much difficulty, that he had never been able to come to any satisfactory conclusion. From the difference, as to improvement in the state of Ireland some time ago, and now, and from other circumstances, he could very well conceive that land might, at no very distant period, have been let at 90l. per annum, which might now yield 940l. a year. He himself knew an instance, where a gentleman had let 13,000 acres for lives, or a long term of years, reserving 800 acres of demesne lands; and now he had a greater rent from the 800 acres, than from the 13,000. But these grants of long terms at low rents, had been very prevalent at one time; and a great proportion of the Irish tenures were of this description. They had, indeed, been considered as almost equal to grants in fee simple, so far as they went. Where such small rents had been retained by the original landlord, the lands would naturally sub-let, perhaps, six deep, the rente rising progressively. His friend, the gentleman to whom he alluded, did not use the remedy of distress, but of ejectment, which was sufficient to procure the payment of such a small rent. But in Ireland, a whole year's rent must be due before the remedy, by ejectment, could be effectual; for after the landlord had got possession, if, within the subsequent six months, the tenant filed a Bill in Equity, and paid the rent and costs, he again got his land. It was clear, therefore, that in the circumstances of the landed proprietors of Ireland, the remedy of ejectment was not always sufficient. Suppose land let for lives, or a very long term, such as one thousand years, and sub-let three deep, it would be very difficult to get the rent by ejectment, and therefore they were compelled to resort to the remedy of distress. Yet, by the plan of the noble lord, this remedy would be rendered, in a great measure nugatory. Take the instance which he himself stated, for example, of land let by A to B for 90l.; by B to C for 700l.; and by C to D for 750l. In this case C could not distrain for his 50l. perhaps the whole of his means of subsistence, till he had paid 90l. to A and 700l. to B, which it might be utterly impossible for him to do. In Ireland, he was sorry to say, the remedy of distress was more commonly applied than in England. Almost every estate had what was called its driver. The occupiers, unfortunately, often took the lands at more than they could pay, except in plentiful years; and only the-produce of the land remained to pay the rent. This gave occasion to many frauds in removing that produce; and these, he was sorry to say, had a bad effect on the character of the Irish Peasantry, which was not what one would wish it to be. They had, in general, no capital,—the rent could only be paid out of the produce of the land, and a bad season consequently disabled them to pay. This made the remedy of distress so much more common than in England. It was not, therefore, any difference in the law that produced the evil, but the difference of the circumstances of the two countries in other respects. He could not exactly agree with the noble lord in his suggestion, that it was enough for the middle-man to have his remedy upon his contract, without being permitted to resort to the land. To take the example before alluded to, B had a good title to the land, paying 90l. to A; and it he had the right to sub-let to C, and chose to reserve his power of distress, it would be a violation of the laws of property to deprive him of it. If, therefore, the noble lord's provision on this point was intended to be retrospective, it would be the cause of gross injustice to many persons. Indeed, the mischief might be more extensive than some were at present aware of. Suppose C in the instance stated, died in--solvent, or assigned his interest; the noble lord's plan in cases of that nature, might be the means of great injustice, and create a prodigious new subject of litigation. The noble earl said, that the under-tenant, was no party to the contract. This was a mistake, he was a party, and in that view there was no injustice in keeping him to that which he had accepted with his eyes open. His title to the land must be derived from those above him, and he must, therefore, be a party to that upon which alone his right was founded. This, however, was a very important subject, and he hoped their lordships would consider well of it. Every one must wish that the evil should be removed; but they ought to take care not to legislate rashly, lest they might do more mischief in one way, than they prevented in another. They might cast about in their minds, whether the sub-demising of land, with a power of distress, might not be checked; whether it might not be provided, that afterwards no subletting, with such a power, should be allowed. That, he thought, was the utmost extent to which they could go; that in subsequent sub-demises, the power of distress should be either taken away or modified. He himself happened to hold some land in Ireland, and had expended a good deal of money upon it. When he left that country, no purchaser could be found, and if he had not had the power of sub-demising, with the remedy of distress, he should have had no remedy at all, and the property would have been of little value. This was owing to the unfortunate state of Ireland. The disturbed situation of that country gave occasion to the frequency of the instances in which this remedy was resorted to. If the country were perfectly tranquil, the evil would soon remedy itself. Those who, without capital, were now the tenants of the soil, would then be labourers on the farms of others, and the mischief, would be done away, or at least exist only in the same degree as in England. Indeed, the practice of sub-demising was already beginning to be less frequent. Landlords now began to understand that it was their interest to grant leases with a condition not to sub-let, and the evil was gradually diminishing. But, however, the subject deserved the most serious consideration, and he certainly should not oppose this Bill at present. He should be most happy if a remedy could be provided, but he confessed that he could not see any method by which the evil could be effectually cured. He could at this moment, he was sorry to say, conceive no plan which would not do as much mischief in other respects, as it would do good in this.

The Earl of Clancarty

very much doubted whether any adequate remedy could be provided: and as to the measure proposed by the noble earl, he was sure that he himself must see the difficulties which stood in the way of its adoption. The noble earl said, that the middle-men might be left to their remedy upon contract independent of the land, because the subtenants were no parties; but it must be remembered, that the sub-tenants were like purchasers, with notice of the fact. They knew the powers of those above them, and took the land subject to the burthen. To deprive the middle-men of their rights by an ex post facto law, would be gross injustice; but he believed, that the practice of creating these middle tenants, was very fast going down, from the landlords better understanding their own interest, and the value of their property. It also became less the interest of those who might be disposed to put themselves in the situation of middle-men to have any thing to do with such leases, for the profits were but very small, compared with those of former demises of that nature. The practice had arisen, or at least, attained the great height to which it had reached, from the peculiar circumstances of Ireland: bat since the late improvements in that country, the evil was diminishing, and he trusted, would soon be done away. He would not, however, oppose the printing of the Bill. The subject was worthy of the most attentive consideration; but if the noble earl meant to restrict subletting, he wished him to consider what would be the effect, especially in large towns, such as Dublin and London, if the provisions of the Bill were to be extended to both countries, as he understood they were.

The Earl of Suffolk

agreed, that it was most desirable that a remedy should be provided, but doubted whether this one could be adopted. He was glad, however, to hear from the noble lord who spoke last, that the practice of sub-demising was going down. He himself happened to have come to the knowledge of an instance which so far corroborated that statement. A gentleman of great property in Ireland, had sent his steward to survey his estates there. The steward found it necessary to have a considerable guard in going round the property. But alter the survey, he resolved to put an end to the practise of demising to middle tenants, and the people were so well pleased at this, that they could with difficulty be prevented from taking the horses from his carriage, and drawing it themselves. He agreed that this was a subject which deterred the most serious consideration.

Lord Holland,

after observing that his noble friend deserved the thanks of the country for having brought forward this question, said, that he did not think his proposal had been fairly treated. Considering the magnitude of the subject, he thought the noble lords on the other side ought to have waited till they had the printed Bill in their hands before they met the plan with so many expressions of despair, as to its propriety and capability of remedying the evil complained of. That the evil was of a most serious nature, no one could doubt; and if it was possible that any remedy could be applied without violating the fundamental laws of property, there could be as little doubt but it ought to be adopted. The noble and learned lord, (Redesdale) had admitted the existence of the evil, but had dwelt chiefly on the difficulty of applying a cure. That, however, was no reason against entertaining the subject, and the objections to it had better be reserved till another time. The noble lord over the way (lord Clancarty), had adverted to the effect which such a plan might have on existing contracts. That objection did not come well from him, who had voted in favour of a measure formerly proposed by his noble friend, (the Bank-Note Bill), which went to violate all subsisting contracts. How happened it that the noble lord did not then think of an objection, which applied much more to that measure than to this? He could not conceive how the noble lord could consistently make this objection now, when he had disregarded it in the other case. It was clear that the practice in question was one great cause of the disturbed state of Ireland, and of no small degree of oppression. If he had wanted any confirmation of this, the statement of the noble and learned lord opposite would have been sufficient to convince him; for the statement was, that the middle-men were compelled by a regard to their own interest, to have frequent recourse to the ruinous measure of distress. He agreed that they ought to proceed with caution and circumspection, but the forms of the House were a sufficient security for that. If the principle of the Bill should be found to be good, the committee would be the place to suggest amendments and alterations. The Union with Ireland had existed foe several years; and he recollected one great argument for it was, the profound attention which would be given the affairs of Ireland. It was with pain that he witnessed how little that expectation had been answered. He was sorry to see so thin an attendance on a subject of so much importance to that country. But it might, perhaps, be some excuse to Ireland, that the attendance was likely to be equally thin on a subject of no less importance to this country, the discussion of which was to have come on that night [alluding to the Insolvent Debtors' Bill.] The object in both cases was similar—it was to remove an evil which produced a mass of human misery and oppression. In both cases, the existence of the evil was acknowledged: the difficulty was to provide the remedy. But they ought to struggle the more against that difficulty if there "as any possibility of its being surmounted.

The Earl of Clancarly

in explanation maintained, that he had supported the Bill alluded to by the noble lord, on the ground of preventing the tenant from being ground to the dust by being called upon to pay more than he ought to be compelled to pay, under the equity of his contract.

The Lord Chancellor

said, that the subject unquestionably deserved the most serious attention; it involved many considerations with regard to the law of landed properly, which had not as yet been alluded to. The law was the same in England and Ireland, and it ought to be remembered, that the landholders there had it in their power so to contract as to render this Bill unnecessary.

The Bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be printed.