Lords Sitting of 4 April 1848

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Lord Heytesbury.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Provident Associations Fraud Prevention.—Election Recognisances.
2a Stamp Duties Assimilation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Sunderland, Exeter, and Leamington, for Exemption of Charitable Bequests from Legacy Duties.—From Buttevant, and several other Places, against the National System of Education (Ireland).—From Ayot, St. Lawrence, and Birmingham, for the Imposition of the Severest Penalties on all Roman Catholic Priests who shall Denounce Persons from the Altar.—From Royston and Barley, against the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Home, Bill,—From Loughrea, and several other Places, for a Revision of the Electoral Divisions (Ireland).—From Newry, for the Appointment of a Select Committee, to Inquire into the Policy of a Continuance of the Navigation Laws,—From Alloa, Glasgow, and Leith, for the Maintenance of the Navigation Laws,—From the Mullingar Union, and Westmeath, for Amendment of the Poor Law, Ireland.—From the Borough of Limerick, for the Abolition of Ministers' Money, and to Substitute an Equivalent.—From Wexford, for the Establishment of Tenant Right (Ireland).—From Members of several Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, for the Extension of the Pro-

1253
visions of the Benefit Societies Act to that Order.—From the Inhabitants of Colombo, complaining of the Existing Law relating to Verandahs.—From Nairn, for the Revision of the Stamp Duties (Scotland); and the Abolition of the Duty on Personal Succession.—From the same Place, for an Alteration in the Laws respecting Prisons (Scotland), with regard to the Mode of Assessment.—From the same Place, for Facilitating the Attainment of Sites for Churches.—From Leamington Priors, against the Increase and Continuance of the Income Tax.—From Coventry, against the Admission of Jews into Parliament.

TENANT-RIGHT.
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY,in presenting a petition from tenant-farmers of Wexford, in favour of tenant-right, said, that a large body of tenant-farmers, living in a county certainly unknown to him, having appealed to him to present the petition, he did not think he could decline the duty, though he had informed them distinctly that he could not advocate the whole purpose of the petition. An ardent advocate for what he understood as the tenant's right, it was not surprising the petition had been confided to him. After alluding to the Bill brought in on the subject under the last Administration, and that proposed by Mr. S. Crawford, the noble Marquess proceeded to observe that the Government Bill had met the decided disapprobation of all parties and persons in the north of Ireland. Even Mr. S. Crawford tore it to pieces. If ever it passed into a law, he (the Marquess of Londonderry) trusted it would be a complete dead letter in Ulster; but should it come to that House, he should move a proviso saving existing customs. According to the tenant-right in Ulster, if a tenant wished to sell his holding, whether there was a lease or no lease, provided he brought a competent successor for the approbation of the landlord or agent, the sale took place. No inquiry was made as to the bargain between man and man. If the party purchasing was not in the landlord's mind eligible, he gave his veto, and another candidate might be produced. If no purchaser was brought forward, and the tenant desired to quit, or if no rent was paid, or misconduct occurred, the landlord, at a valuation open to the opinions of all on the estate, gave full compensation for outlay, and got another tenant. In all this there was no compulsion. If any measure could really be devised to ameliorate the relations between landlord and tenant, he should certainly not oppose it. But he could not go the length of the petition, which prayed that tenants should have power to sell possession of
1254
their holdings by their own free will to the highest bidders, under a guarantee that the rents should not be raised, except at a valuation by them. He could not, in justice to his own feelings, conclude without expressing his humble but unqualified approbation of the manner in which the noble Lord at the head of the Government in Ireland had conducted the arduous and difficult administration of that country. To say nothing of his personal exertions, a rare example of prudence, firmness, and wisdom had been presented in all his proceedings. The noble Lord had allowed all the bravado to pass; he had allowed the alarm as to attacks on St. Patrick's day, and the terrors and the threats which had been held out, to take their course. When the declamation of Mr. Mitchell and his a dherents had vanished into thin air, the noble Lord quietly and firmly put his hand on the delinquents, and vindicated the majesty of the law. There were, no doubt, great alarms; he (the Marquess of Londonderry) hoped great exaggerations. He had full confidence in the noble Lord's firmness, and in the brave soldiery, should their services unfortunately be required. But he considered the people of Ireland sound to the core. It was by misery and destitution, not by civil war or bloodshed, that he feared they would be cursed.

CEYLON.
LORD BEAUMONTpresented a petition from the inhabitants of Colombo, in the island of Ceylon, complaining of a gross interference with the rights of property on the part of the Ceylon Government. The noble Lord observed that nearly all the houses in Ceylon had verandahs before them, the greater part of which had been standing from time immemorial, few of them having been erected within the last sixty years. From their position there was no doubt that in the narrow streets of Colombo they were impediments to the passing of carriages; and in consequence of this, an order was issued by the Government in 1846 that these verandahs should be destroyed, but without giving their owners any compensation; while in the wide streets, where they were no impediment, the people were compelled to pay from 2s. to 2s. 6d. a foot for them, besides being put to a heavy expense for title-deeds. This was done on the ground that they were erected on the property of the Crown, though it was alleged that in all previous

1255
cases where these verandahs had been removed, compensation had been given. A proposal had been made by the inhabitants that all verandahs erected within ten years should be destroyed, but that those of longer standing should have compensation given for them. This was not acceded to, however, and the petitioners now asked for justice from that House. Many of the persons affected were very poor, and severely felt the pressure of the Government measures.
EARL GREYsaid, there could be no doubt whatever that these verandahs were encroachments upon the narrow streets of Colombo, and therefore, in 1844, an ordinance was first issued by the Government, calling upon the occupiers to show that they had any right to the ground on which they were built. In the cases where parties proved their right, compensation was given; and in those cases where the verandahs were sold, the proceeds of the sale went for the general benefit of the island. He believed that in no case had the Government interfered without a full right to do so, and that there was no doubt that the object was the removal of what was felt to be a great nuisance. In his opinion, therefore, there was no case for the interference of the House.
House adjourned.