HL Deb 24 April 1812 vol 22 cc858-9
Earl Stanhope

moved the second reading of his Bill for the relief of the Peasantry and Tenantry in Great Britain and Ireland, observing, that the law of distress being the same in Great Britain as in Ireland, Great Britain was therefore included in the Bill. His lordship proceeded to comment upon the speech of a noble and learned lord (Redesdale) on the first reading of the Bill, observing, that a letter he had quoted of a great lawyer, stating the evils arising from the operation of the law of distress in Ireland, was the letter of that noble and learned lord himself, who in contradicting by his arguments his own letter, had shewn the utmost impartiality, it being the maximum of impartiality to write one way and speak another, and had thus fallen into a trap which the noble and learned lord had himself baited. His lordship then recapitulated his former statements, pulling them in different points of view for the purpose of shewing the gross injustice of permitting the occupying tenant to be distrained upon not only by his immediate lessor, but also by all the intermediate lessees, or middle-men, by which the occupying tenant was subjected to the greatest oppression.

Lord Redesdale

denied that his arguments were at all at variance with his letter alluded to by the noble earl, but deprecated the making public confidential letters (the letter being confidential to whom it was written), as it tended to destroy all confidence between man and man. His lordship then observed upon the impossibility, as it appeared to him, of making any legislative provision upon this subject, without committing the greatest injustice, by operating retrospectively in the most injurious manner upon rights of property, which had in various ways, been made the subject of contract and settlement. He would not, however, oppose the second reading, being willing to try if any practicable mode of lessening an evil which undoubtedly existed in Ireland, though not in this country, could be devised.

The Lord Chancellor

thought the Bill tended to unsettle the whole law of landlord and tenant in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and that as at present framed, it would operate most unjustly. If any thing could be done with it in committee, he had no objection to its going to that stage; but he was confident that no one clause at present in the Bill could be allowed to remain a part of it.

The Earl of Liverpool

suggested the necessity of appointing a distant day for the committee, in order that accurate information might in the mean time be obtained respecting the extensive and important interests which would be affected by such a measure, and proposed this day two months.

Earl Stanhope

suggested one month, which was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time, and committed for this day month.