Lords Sitting of 8 June 1849

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—Reported.—Defects in Leases. 3a Apprehension of Deserters (Portugal).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From London, Cockermouth, and several other Places, for the Suppression of Seduction and Prostitution.—From Kilmeena and Kilmaelasser, against the present Operation of the Poor Laws (Ireland).—By Lord Stanley, from the Mayor and Corporation of the City of London, that the Irish Society may be Exempt from the Operation of the Leasehold Tenure of Lauds (Ireland) Bill.

CASE OF MR. RTLAND.
The DUKE of ARGYLL, in rising, pursuant to his notice, to present a petition from George Hermon Ryland, Esq., and to call attention to the statement of his case, said, that he should not trouble their Lordships at any great length, for cases of individual hardship, unless they were connected with party politics, or involved some principle of public importance, were not, he was afraid, calculated to attract a great share of public interest. He had no personal connexion with the petitioner, and until a few months ago he had never heard even of his name; but when the circumstances of that gentleman's case were placed before him they created a very painful impression upon his mind, because he saw that Mr. Ryland was suffering great hardship and wrong at the hands of several powerful bodies. Until a short time ago he had hoped that the case of the petitioner would have been stated to their Lordships by a noble Friend of his, whose long standing and high position in the House would have given him greater advantage than he could possibly aspire to; but when that arrangement failed, and the petitioner asked him to express in public the sentiments which he had often expressed in private, he felt that he could not in common fairness refuse such a request. Although the name of the petitioner was perhaps locally unknown to their Lordships, it was a name which had been long honourably known in our North American possessions. So long ago as the year 1804, Lord Camden, in one of his despatches, had mentioned the name of Mr. Ryland's father as that of an individual

1267
who had claims upon Her Majesty's Government for his long and effective public services. The Earl of Liverpool had also mentioned his name in the same terms; and Mr. Canning had spoken of him in the House of Commons, and in reward of his services he had been appointed Clerk of the Executive Council for the province of Lower Canada. Forty years ago the present petitioner had assisted his father for some years, he knew not how many, in discharging the duties of his office. The earliest despatch in which allusion was made to the petitioner was one written by his noble Friend Lord Glenelg, when Secretary of State for the Colonies. In answer to a Memorial addressed to that noble Lord by the late Mr. Ryland, that he might retire from his office in favour of his son. Lord Glenelg expressed his readiness to accede to it, liable, however, to the approbation of Lord Gosford, who was then Governor General of the province. Lord Gosford, in reply, acknowledged the claims of the Rylands, both father and son, to public employment, and after objecting to appoint the son to the father's office, lest it should give rise to the observation that they held the office of Clerk to the Council by hereditary tenure, said that he should prefer to reward him by appointing him to some other lucrative office. The question was therefore left open for future consideration. Shortly afterwards the late Earl of Durham was sent out as Governor General to Canada; and he intended to give to the present petitioner the office of Receiver General of Canada, which was expected to be shortly vacant. Mr. Ryland the father died, however, before it did become vacant; and thereupon the Earl of Durham issued a commission under the great seal of Canada appointing the son to the office of his father, and to all and singular the fees, profits, and emoluments arising therefrom. Those emoluments amounted to more than 1,000 l. a year. They were accompanied with no responsibility of a pecuniary kind—the duties of the office were light, and it was therefore a very desirable post. In consequence of the appointment having been made in conformity with the authority of a previous Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Earl of Durham did not consider it requisite to report the appointment to the Government at home. In consequence of his failing so to report it, the apprehensions of Mr. Ryland were excited, and he made an application on the subject to the Marquess of Normanby, who then held the office of
1268
Colonial Secretary. That noble Marquess, in July, 1839, wrote a despatch in reply, which he (the Duke of Argyll) considered very important. It was addressed to Sir John Colborne, who was then Governor of Canada, and contained this paragraph:—
"I beg to inform you that Mr. Ryland's nomination to this office was not reported to my predecessor by the Earl of Durham, and, consequently, it was impossible for Lord Glenelg to submit his name to the Queen for that appointment. If, however, you should be of opinion that the selection wos a proper one, and ought to be confirmed, I will give the necessary directions for preparing the usual warrant. But in that case you will apprise Mr. Ryland that if the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada should be hereafter united, and it should be found, in consequence, impossible to continue his services, he would not be entitled to any retiring allowance on account of his present appointment."
Now, this despatch appeared to him to have been written under a misconception, for the Earl of Durham had issued a commission under the great seal of Canada, appointing Mr. Ryland Clerk of the Executive Council, without any reserve at all. It would therefore have been harsh, had that fact been known, to attempt to impose on the holder of that office conditions which he had not been called on to accede to when he first received his appointment. The noble Marquess had also spoken of the contingent impossibility of Mr. Ryland to continue his services in case the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada should hereafter be united. That impossibility, however, had not occurred, for Mr. Ryland had held his appointment for nearly a year after their union, and the local Council had reported that he had done so effectively; and the Attorney and Solicitor Generals of Canada gave it as their opinion, that the conditions of the despatch did not apply to the case of Mr. Ryland. Soon afterwards. Lord Sydenham went out to Canada, as Governor General, having had the important trust confided to him of carrying into effect the union of the two provinces. In the month of January, 1841, he (the Duke of Argyll) was informed—but the letter was not forthcoming—that Lord Sydenham had received a letter from Lord John Russel, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, requesting him not to remove Mr. Ryland from his office. Lord Sydenham at first had no intention of removing him; for, in February, 1841, he swore him into office as Clerk of the Council of the two

1269
provinces. Soon afterwards, however, Lord Sydenham proposed to organise his Council on a new system; and he proposed, in consequence, to Mr. Ryland, to surrender his appointment, and to accept in its stead the office of Registrar of the district of Quebec. As Lord Sydenham was then about to leave the colony, Mr. Ryland sent in to his Lordship a memorial containing an account of the emoluments of the office which he was about to leave, and of the office which he was about to take, and asked him for a guarantee that his emoluments should hereafter he made up to the amount which he received as Clerk of the Council. In reply to this application, Lord Sydenham, in November, 1842, wrote a letter, by his chief secretary, which contained this paragraph:—
"In regard to the Registrarship of Quebec, his Excellency will be prepared to appoint you to that situation whenever the ordinance under which it is created shall be brought into operation, and, in the interval, you will continue to receive the salary attached to the office of Clerk of the Council. But as it is possible that the emoluments of the Registrarship of Quebec may fall very far below those of your present office, his Excellency is willing to guarantee to you an income equal to the sum to which you would be entitled as a retiring allowance were your employment in the public service altogether discontinued. Assuming your income, on an average of the last three years, to be 1,030 l. currency, and your length of service as a public officer to be twenty-four years, you would be entitled, under the scale established by the 4th and 5t William IV., c. 24, to a retirement equal to one-half your emoluments, or 515 l. currency. That amount, therefore, his Excellency is willing to guarantee to you, by making up your emoluments from the employment in the public service which may hereafter be assigned to you, to that extent, should they be insufficient of themselves to do so—should they exceed it, you will of course be entitled to the excess."
He (the Duke of Argyll) called the particular attention of their Lordships to this guarantee, as it was given to Mr. Ryland by the nobleman who was then the representative of the Crown in Canada. Their Lordships would observe, that Lord Sydenham did not, in his guarantee, promise to give to Mr. Ryland emoluments equal to those which he derived from the office which he was about to leave. He did not do that; he only promised to give him an income equal to one-half of the emoluments of his office of Clerk to the Council. Mr. Ryland, by the 4th and 5th of William IV., c. 24, was entitled, at that moment, after twenty-four years' service, to a pension equal to one-half of the emoluments which he was then leaving.
1270
Now, Lord Sydenham was inducing him to resign his old office by giving him a new one with additional work and inferior emoluments. This was, therefore, no very exorbitant guarantee for Lord Sydenham to grant. Mr. Ryland was only promised, for hard work and great responsibility in a new office, an income equal to that to which he would then have been entitled upon retiring, for no work, and without any pecuniary responsibility at all. It was in the beginning of 1842, that Mr. Ryland ceased to draw his salary as Clerk of the Council, and to take that of Registrar of Quebec. He had ex pected that his income for the first year, when the registration commenced, would be 25,000 l, but that, afterwards, it would not exceed 500 l. a year. In July, 1842, above six months after the duties of his office had commenced, Mr. Ryland found the expenses of it so great, and the disbursements required so large, that he applied to Sir G. Bagot for an indemnity for the sums which he had advanced. Sir C. Bagot, in his reply, fully acknowledged the guarantee given to Mr. Ryland by Lord Sydenham, but contended that it could not come into operation for a year. At the end of the year 1842 the ordinance under which the office of Registrar of Quebec was regulated was changed, and the conditions, by which he expected to have netted 25,000 l. in the first year, were so reduced, that his emoluments seemed likely to fall short of the sum which he had been guaranteed. Then Sir C. Metcalfe became Governor General of Canada. To him Mr. Ryland applied; and, in answer to his application, Sir C. Metcalfe officially replied:—
"His Excellency acknowledges your claim to the fulfilment of Lord Sydenham's guarantee, but has no means at his disposal of performing its stipulations, and is advised that a reference to the provincial Parliament would be unsuccessful. Nothing, therefore, is in his power but to keep your claim in view, and to consider it as occasions may arise for benefiting you, consistently with the public interests."
This letter was dated the 7th of April, 1843. In answer to this letter, Mr. Ryland addressed a letter to Sir C. Metcalfe, which it was impossible for any man to read without feelings of pain and sorrow. Mr. Ryland stated that the advances which he had made, had not only involved him in considerable embarrassment, but had al most reduced him to the verge of ruin; he, therefore, urged his request in these terms:—

1271
"Reserving my claim and right to a full indemnity for the actual loss I have sustained by the non-performance of the guarantee, as also for the loss of those advantages which I should still have reaped from the office, such as it was, if it had not been made worse by the Legislature after I accepted it, but before it went fully into operation, I claim to be allowed, at the end of the present year, when my engagement with the officers of the department will have expired, to surrender the office, rather than be involved in worse ruin, and to receive, until an opportunity occurs for placing me in a situation equivalent to that I originally gave up, a retiring allowance on the established pension fund, or otherwise, to the amount which, by Mr. Secretary Murdoch's letter of the 23rd of August, 1841, I was declared to be entitled. I trust that, a grievous wrong having been done me, I shall not be driven into the dilemma of suffering, on the one hand, daily increasing loss, of which no end can be seen, by retaining the office after the period above specified, or of sacrificing, or being considered to sacrifice, on the other hand, my claims on the Government for an equivalent or redress by divesting myself of it."
This requsition Sir C. Metcalfe was no more able to grant than the former requisition which Mr. Ryland had addressed to him. Mr. Ryland then applied to Lord Stanley, who at that time held the seals for the Colonies; and on the 31st of March, 1844, his Lordship wrote a despatch to Sir C. Metcalfe, which it was important that their Lordships should consider, as it was upon that despatch, as also on the despatch of the Marquess of Normanby, that the opponents of Mr. Ryland's claims principally relied. His Lordship said—
"It is clear from the information afforded to me, that Lord Sydenham was fully aware of the condition attached by Her Majesty's Government to the promotion of Mr. Ryland to the office of clerk of the Executive Council of Lower Canada, but that his Lordship thought proper to disregard it, and entered into an engagement with Mr. Ryland, which involved a violation of the instructions of the Secretary of State. It is of course impossible for me to sanction any claim, as of right, founded on the fact of any persons, whoever they might be, taking on themselves to set aside, without even reporting the fact, the official instructions of Her Majesty's Government. The utmost that Mr. Ryland could expect, under Lord Normanby's despatch of the 3rd of July, 1839, was either to be provided with another suitable office, or to be granted a pension computed upon his emoluments as assistant clerk of the Executive Council. Mr. Ryland did receive another appointment, but the income arising from it has not proved sufficient for his legitimate expectations. I am therefore of opinion that he might, with propriety, be assigned, from the fund of 5,000 l a year reserved to the Crown by the Reunion Act for pensions, an allowance proportioned to his income as assistant clerk, until it should be in the power of the Provincial Government to provide him with a more lucrative office than his present one, and the pension fund admit of it. I think that the allowance should be issued from the date
1272
at which he ceased to draw salary as clerk of the Executive Council."
The question, then, turned upon this point—did Lord Sydenham enter into an engagement with Mr. Ryland which exceeded the powers granted to him as representative of the Crown in Canada? He (the Duke of Argyll) should contend that his Lordship had not. On being made acquainted with the despatch of Lord Stanley, Mr. Ryland applied again to the local Government. He also sent in a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Canada, and complained that the guarantee of the Crown had never been fulfilled, although it had been recognised by successive Governors. That memorial was opposed by the Cabinet of Sir C. Metcalfe. It was, however, received by the Legislative Assembly, and referred to a Select Committee, which was ordered to report on all the facts of Mr. Ryland's case. That Committee drew up a report favourable to the claims of Mr. Ryland, and recommended an address to the local Government, expressive of an opinion that the guarantee of Lord Sydenham ought to be fulfilled. With respect to the despatch of the Marquess of Normanby, the Committee expresses itself thus:—
"Even supposing Lord Normanby's despatch of the 3rd of July, 1839, to have been applicable to Mr. Ryland's ease (which the Committee do not admit), it is evident that the contingency therein mentioned did not occur. For, instead of its being found impossible to continue his services, he was actually appointed clerk of the Executive Council of the Province of Canada after the Union, and continued to perform the duties of the office for nearly a year afterwards."
The report concluded thus:—
"It appears that Mr. Ryland, by trusting to the guarantee of the late Governor General, has lost a lucrative office—has been deprived of all emolument from his substituted appointments—and is now threatened with the loss of his retiring allowance, which he would have had a right to claim, at the same time that other officers similarly situated were placed on the pension list of the country. Your Committee, on a consideration of the circumstances above stated, cannot but consider that Mr. Ryland's case is one of great hardship—that his claims, the justice of which has been officially recognised by the late Governor General, Lord Metcalfe, ought not to be avoided or overlooked—and that he has a right to expect that the contract entered into between him and the Government, of which he has performed his part, should be carried out according to its terms; or, as that may now be impossible, that he should be fully compensated for the non-fulfilment thereof"
He must now inform their Lordships that on this report being brought up, a division took place upon it, and it was rejected.

1273
It was, however, put in another shape subsequently, and then it was carried unanimously. The Legislative Assembly rejected the claim of Mr. Ryland on the provincial funds, and threw it upon the imperial funds. They therefore resolved upon an address to the Crown, in which they came to conclusions expressed almost in the words of the report which he had just read to their Lordships. This appeal to the Crown was received by Earl Grey, who had then succeeded to the Colonial Office; and in July, 1846, he wrote the following despatch:—
"An examination of that correspondence has satisfied me that the decision communicated to you by Mr. Gladstone, in his despatches of the 1st and 26th of May last, was just and well founded. My predecessor did not controvert, nor do I deny, Mr. Ryland's claim to compensation for whatever loss he may have sustained by the surrender of his office as clerk to the Executive Council. But that surrender was made with a view to Canadian objects, and in aid of a policy suggested by, and directed to, the interests of Canada. Mr. Ryland was a public officer of that province; and it was as Governor of Canada, and in no other capacity, that Lord Sydenham negotiated with him. His Lordship had no authority whatever to bind the British Treasury by any such negotiation. Whatever may be the justice of the claim, it is, therefore, a claim against the local, not against the imperial revenue. As the House of Assembly have acknowledged the validity of it, your Lordship will strongly urge on that House the necessity of their providing for the reasonable compensation of the claimant. I must decline to advise the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to address any such recommendation to Parliament,"
From this despatch it was quite clear that his noble Friend acknowledged the justice of the claims of Mr. Ryland, but pointed to the funds of the colony as those from which the guarantee should be made good. In consequence of this despatch, the Cabinet of Lord Elgin appointed a Committee to inquire into the amount of those claims. It was dated the 24th of September, 1847, and was an exceedingly curious document. It entered into an elaborate investigation of the emoluments of the two offices which Mr. Ryland had held, and concluded with this recommendation:—
"That there be placed in the estimates to be submitted at the next Session of the Legislature the block sum of 2,500 l., in full of all past and future claims respecting the abovementioned arrangements, and in compensation for loss of the office which Mr. Ryland originally held."
Against the inadequacy of the pecuniary amount thus awarded to him, Mr. Ryland protested; but not against the other portions of the report, which were satisfactory to the justice of his claims. Shortly after
1274
this report was agreed to, the Cabinet of Lord Elgin was changed; and was succeeded by another, which denied Mr. Ryland's claims in toto, and declined to have anything to do with his case. He had now gone through the principal points in the claims of Mr. Ryland; but there were some incidental points which still deserved notice. And here he must call the attention of their Lordships to a memorandum recorded by Lord Metcalfe, in November, 1845, which was in itself a complete answer to the last report of the Legislative Assembly:—
"Although I concur entirely in many of the sentiments expressed by the Committee in their report of the 5th instant upon Mr. Ryland's case, I regret that I feel compelled to withhold my approval from it, as a whole, because, by approving it, I should be assenting to a principle appearing to me to be unjust, and from the adoption of which I foresee future embarrassment in carrying on the government. I am of opinion that the pledge given to Mr. Ryland by the late Lord Sydenham ought to be redeemed; and I conceive that the local government and the colony are the responsible parties, because the pledge was given for a political and public object, to enable the Governor General to affect an arrangement for carrying out the new system of government, established to meet the views then entertained in the province."
The report which Lord Metcalf thus condemned was identical with the report which the present Cabinet of Lord Elgin had warmly supported. He (the Duke of Argyll) was bound to say, that that report had not met the case either fairly or justly; for, in his opinion, the claims of Mr. Ryland were in every respect well founded. He had said, upon opening this case, that he had risen with the most painful feelings from the perusal of the documents connected with it; and those feelings referred not to this particular case only, but to considerations far more important. It was quite evident that the Canadian Legislature was not governed by those principles of justice which actuated the Parliament of England when claims like those of Mr. Ryland came before it. He did not stand alone in that opinion; for since Mr. Ryland had come to England, he had applied to various Members of Her Majesty's Government, and he (the Duke of Argyll) found that no less a personage than the noble Lord at the head of the Government had indicated opinions and expressed feelings similar to those which he had just expounded to their Lordships. In a letter dated not many months ago, the noble Premier had admitted the justice of the petitioner's claims, had expressed deep regret that he

1275
could not fulfil the guarantee of Lord Sydenham out of the imperial treasury, and had fully recognised the obligation of the colonial treasury to redeem it, as it was given for the promotion of colonial interests. In a subsequent note, he found Lord John Russell declaring that he had read the statement of Mr. Ryland with great pain, and that he regretted that the colonial legislature did not take the same views of justice—yes, of justice: those were his words—as we did. He likewise added, that he could not find any principle on which the Government at home could be called upon to recompense those who suffered hardship from the colonial legislatures. Until the colonial legislatures took the same views of justice that we did, they could not expect to derive the same blessings from the enjoyment of liberty. He knew that there were some persons in the colonies who thought that, when they had got the paraphernalia of our system—when they had a powerless representative of the Crown, a powerful representative body, and the opportunity of dissolving the Cabinet and appealing to the electoral body on the slightest pretence, they had got thereby all the elements of liberty. Alas, that the principles of liberty should be so misunderstood! We knew better, for in all our political contests at home our principle had always been to exercise strict justice with regard to the rights of private individuals. He placed no blame at the door either of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), or of his noble Friend near him (Earl Grey), because the claims of this petitioner had not been satisfied; for he so far agreed with them, that he thought they ought to be satisfied out of the funds of the colony. It ought not, however, to be forgotten that those claims had been guaranteed by the representative of the Crown of England; and he could not, for his own part, draw a distinction between Lord Sydenham as the representative of the Crown, and Lord Sydenham as Governor General of Canada; for it was as Governor General that his Lordship represented the Crown. The individual who had received the guarantee of the Crown ought not to be allowed to suffer by it; nay, more, the Crown was bound to come forward for his relief. He hoped that in the reply to his observations, which his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies would proceed immediately to deliver, he would not retract the opinion which he had formerly expressed, an opin-
1276
ion which had been entertained by his predecessors in office, and by three successive Governors General of Canada, on grounds untouchable and untouched. He hoped that he would once more announce it to be his conviction that the claims of the petitioner ought to be met in a spirit of justice by the Legislative Assembly of Canada. The only transaction connected with this case which had happened since his noble Friend (Earl Grey) had been in office, was the reservation of a very considerable fund on the union of the two Canadas, out of which such claims as the present were to be paid; but it appeared that when the Act of Union was passed, no reservation whatever was made with reference specially to the claim of this petitioner; nothing whatever was said about Mr. Ryland. Under all the circumstances, therefore, he considered that that gentleman had a claim on the Imperial Government to fulfil the guarantee of the Crown.
EARL GREYfelt it necessary to address but a very few words indeed to their Lordships on this subject. In fact, he scarcely deemed it necessary to say anything, as the noble Duke had not even suggested that this was a case in which the interference of that House would be of any use. He should, therefore, confine what he had to say merely to a reference to the opinion expressed by Lord Metcalfe on the subject, whose opinion, on questions of this kind, was entitled to great weight. Lord Metcalfe said—
"It has always appeared to me that Mr. Ryland's claim rests exclusively upon the engagement entered into with him by the late Lord Sydenham, which, supposing it to be valid, ought, I conceive, to be binding on the local government; but I do not sec upon what ground Mr. Ryland is entitled to a pension. Holding de facto the clerkship to the Executive Council of Canada, he voluntarily resigned that office for another appointment, on certain conditions, and I consider that if these can be complied with, every obligation towards Mr. Ryland will be fulfilled. Under this view of the case, I have lately advanced him to a more lucrative situation than that for which he resigned the clerkship to the Executive Council. I am not at present able to say whether or not the emoluments of the new office will be sufficient to redeem Lord Sydenham's pledge for the future, or to afford compensation for the past; but I am of opinion that the local government and the colony are the responsible parties, as the arrangement was made for political purposes connected with the new system of government established to meet the views then entertained by the colony."
Their Lordships would perceive that it was distinctly Lord Metcalfe's opinion that this was not a case in which the Government of

1277
this country could properly be called upon to make a grant; and his (Earl Grey's) own opinion was, that if Government were to apply to Parliament to make such a grant, it would establish a principle of very wide application, and one which might be attended with dangerous consequences. It was a question concerning the local affairs of the colony, and over which he conceived the Canadian legislature had exclusive constitutional control. He wished most sincerely that the local government had taken a more favourable view of Mr. Ryland's case. At the same time, by taking the course which that gentleman had done in presenting this petition to their Lordships, instead of appealing to the colonial government, he (Earl Grey) was compelled to express an opinion which he should have been glad to abstain from doing. That opinion was, that he believed the Government of Canada had been sincerely desirous of doing what they considered to be just to Mr. Ryland. Undoubtedly in British America, as well as in the United States, notions were entertained concerning the vested rights of persons holding office, very different from the notions which were held upon that subject in this country. The people in America recognised all claims founded on justice with as much strictness as this country did; but, with regard to persons holding office, all of whom were supposed, technically speaking, to hold them during pleasure—the vested rights of such persons were regarded very differently in America to what they were in England, At the same time, there was every disposition, in Mr. Ryland's case, to view his claim with indulgence, and to grant him compensation as far as circumstances would admit. It would be observed from the statement of the noble Duke, that, in the opinion of Lord Sydenham, Mr. Ryland had some claim to an office with emoluments equal to but not higher than what would have been the amount of his retiring salary, supposing the union of the provinces had not taken place, and that amount would have been 515 l. In 1842 Mr. Ryland was appointed Registrar of Quebec, which he exchanged in 1845 for what was considered a more lucrative office—that of Registrar of Montreal. He (Earl Grey) understood that if Mr. Ryland had attended to the duties of his office personally, instead of by deputy, he could have realised a very excellent income, almost if not quite equal in amount to the fees which he had been in the habit of receiving from his former appointment.
1278
It was a singular circumstance that there was no return of Mr. Ryland's actual profits from either of those offices. But he (Earl Grey) held in his hand a return of the profits derived by Mr. Ryland's predecessor from the Registry Office of Montreal for the year 1842, which would appear to have been a more lucrative office than that of the Registrar of Quebec. Mr. Bowling in that year received 499 l. 16 s. 11 d. What Mr. Ryland received as Registrar of Quebec did not appear; but since that office had been hold by Mr. Montizambert the receipts had been for 1845, 210 l. 17 s. 5d.; 1846, 15 s.; and for 1847, 5244 l. 15 s.; being actually more than Mr. Ryland had a right to claim as a retiring salary. It could not he said under these circumstances, that their Lordships were entitled to take the very severe view of the conduct which the authorities of Canada had adopted as had been taken by the noble Duke. He (Earl Grey) could not pretend to pass a judgment upon the subject. It was a question upon which it was highly inconvenient that an opinion should be expressed. All he could say was, that upon the facts stated there was no proof that the authorities in Canada were disposed to deal unjustly towards Mr. Ryland. He was quite convinced that neither Her Majesty's Government not their Lordships could usefully interfere, and that it was a question which ought to be left to the judgment and the decision of the Canadians themselves.
LORD BROUGHAMrepeated the opinion which he had formerly expressed as to the hardship of Mr. Ryland's case, and expressed a hope that, after the kind manner in which the noble Earl had spoken with regard to that gentleman, he would apply his mind to the subject, to see whether some compensation could not be obtained for the petitioner.
Petition to lie on the table.

LEASEHOLD TENURE OF LANDS (IRELAND) BILL.
LORD STANLEYpresented a petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of the city of London in common council assembled, praying that clauses might he inserted to exempt the property of the Irish Society from the operation of this Bill. The petition stated that the property of this Society had always been well managed, and that the profits derived from it were devoted to educational and religious purposes; and that, in order to retain effectual control

1279
over it, their practice was to lease it to the tenants for a certain number of years, such leases being renewable in all cases where the conditions of the original lease had been strictly kept; and they complained that to compel them to convert these leases into perpetuities would deprive them of that necessary control.
The EARL of WICKLOWhad, when the question of the Irish Society had been brought under consideration in previous stages of the Bill, objected to the amendments proposed to meet this case; but, since then, he found that a clause had been introduced to protect the property of one individual from the operation of the Bill, and, though he was not disposed to think that every proposition for exempting any particular company or individual should be adopted, yet as the change had been made for the benefit of one person, he did not see how it could be refused when demanded by others whose case was equally strong. Under these circumstances, if his noble Friend should think fit to move that the Bill be permissive and not compulsory, he (the Earl of Wicklow) would support him.
LORD CAMPBELL, in moving the third reading of the Bill, said, in reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) as to the power which remained of enforcing covenants, he was happy to be able to call his attention to a clause which had been drawn up by the noble Earl opposite, and suggested it as an improvement in the Bill. He (Lord Campbell) thought it would be a great improvement, and the provisions of the Bill were such as ought to satisfy any society or individual. The noble Lord then read the clause, which provided that in all cases when the rent was under 50 l., the parties concerned should be at liberty to refer their differences to the assistant barrister of the county for arbitration in regard to Clause 2, which referred to the exceptional case alluded to by the Earl of Wicklow, he said his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, in introducing the Bill, had his attention turned to certain cases where, under private Acts of Parliament, the power of granting leases and other privileges were enjoyed. There were one such case, at least, which he (Lord Campbell) well knew, and which the noble Earl no doubt referred to. On that individual advantages were conferred by Act of Parliament, and these advantages were very valuable. He thought, then, it would be very hard to deprive that individual by one
1280
Act of Parliament of the advantages which he enjoyed under another, and, therefore, it was that his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor thought it advisable to make the case an exception. He (Lord Campbell), in the absence of his noble and learned Friend, did not feel himself at liberty to withdraw the clause; but, of course, it was still in the power of their Lordships to say whether or not this exception ought to stand. But he trusted their Lordships would allow the Bill to be read a third time. He said he should not now move the clause which he had read, but bring it up as an Amendment, when the question was before their Lordships, that the Bill do pass.
LORD MONTEAGLEwished to recall their Lordships' attention to the position in which the Bill now stood; but, first, he might state, in regard to the clause which the noble and learned Lord had read to the House, that he would not oppose it. But in regard to the second clause, the Bill, when first introduced, did not contain it. That clause was introduced by his noble Friend (Lord Beaumont), upon the bringing up of the report, and introduced too without explanation. He (Lord Monteagle), however, took occasion happily to suggest that it should be printed; and, now that it had been printed, he wished to call the attention of their Lordships to it. The marginal note and the clause differed in effect. The marginal note was, "no grant required to be made where owners have converted leases into perpetuity by any private arrangement." The noble Lord then read the clause. The noble Lord said the two cases were quite different: the note and the clause did not refer to the same thing. He was opposed to the clause, as introducing an exemption on behalf of a particular case, and he would reject it as breaking down the principle of the Bill. What, then, was the argument in defence of the clause? Why, that it had been introduced consistently with the good faith of Parliament, who gave this individual an assurance in regard to certain arrangements which he might make. But he must remind their Lordships that a private Act of Parliament was an unexecuted Act, which had as little to do with public Bills as his marriage settlement, or the grant of his ancestor. If they were to allow this case as an exception to the measure, then he should argue that the case of the Irish Society was very much stronger, and ought to be admitted to the

1281
exemption which they claimed. He would say that it was their bounden duty to take care that legislation should be conducted on the principles of even-handed justice, so that there should be no preference of one case over another; and, above all, that no one within their Lordships' House should have privileges beyond others; that no Member of that House should have the express favour conferred of privileges which others beyond the bar were unable to obtain.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, he should support the Bill, and he was not prepared to abandon the clause referred to, unless much stronger reasons were offered. The clause was his; the marginal note was introduced by others. But he spoke of the clause. He reminded their Lordships that when the Bill was introduced, he took the opportunity of stating that it proposed to take away the property of one man and give it to another, without giving the first any compensation. It took away the property from the lessor, and gave it to the lessee. He stated then that the object of the Bill was good; that it proposed abolishing a bad tenure, and substituting a better for it. But in doing that, in carrying out their good intentions, they must take care to do wrong to no man, to injure no one, in order to benefit another. This Bill, as it stood when introduced by the Government, was to benefit the middleman, and him only, whom it made first man in regard to the property. But, then, what compensation did they offer to the lessor? They found the lessor as he was situated at present, in possession of fines leviable at every renewal of the lease, and they proposed to convert these fines into a fee-farm rent; but they did not propose to give anything for the value of the reversion. It was to meet this defect in the Bill that he had introduced the sixth clause, which provided that compensation should be given for the reversion. He said, in regard to the exceptional case in the second clause of the Bill, that it stood upon the good faith of Parliament. Parliament had granted to a private individual the power of commuting leasehold into fee-simple, on terms such as were contained in the Act, and for the reason that this person could deal with his property in that way to greater advantage. He accepted the terms offered him by Parliament; he accepted the assurance granted him; and he went and dealt with his property on the faith of that assurance, never dreaming that he was to be deprived
1282
by one Act of Parliament of the advantage conferred on him by another. The noble Lord proceeded to contend that, in the whole works of M. Proudhon, there was not a passage which advocated so gross a violation of the rights of property as that contemplated by this Bill. It proposed to take away a man's station and position in the country as the owner of property, and, obliging him to sell, to convert him into a mere pensioner. When they were dealing with property, he recommended them not to commence with such a palpable injustice as this, or they would shake one of the first foundations and principles of all peace and order, namely, the security of property. Unless the clause, as proposed, were allowed to stand, he should certainly say "Not-content" to the third reading of the Bill.
LORD BROUGHAMreminded their Lordships that this was the last stage of the Bill. As his noble and learned Friend had proposed to introduce a very important clause, he hoped he would not press the third reading on the present occasion, but would give them time to consider it.
LORD CAMPBELLwas understood to consent to postpone the third reading of the Bill until Monday.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he understood that the second reading of the Encumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill was fixed for Monday next. Now, that was a Bill which demanded their most serious consideration, both as respects its principle and details. Although he thought that the third reading of this Bill should be postponed, inasmuch as it required much more consideration than it had as yet received, he hoped it would not be fixed for a day when their attention would be occupied by other important business. He was of opinion that this measure should be permissive, and not compulsory; and he thought it exceedingly desirable that the Government should take further time to ascertain whether it was possible to adopt the permissive principle, and to amend the Bill in the way suggested. He wished to know whether it was intended to take the Leasehold Tenure Bill and the Encumbered Estates Bill on Monday, because he should protest against both being discussed at the same sitting, both of them being measures which required grave consideration and ample discussion.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, it was his intention to take the second reading of the Encumbered Estates Bill on Monday; and, if time permitted, he hoped, considering

1283
the present circumstances of Ireland, the noble Lord would not object to their going on with the second Bill.
Debate adjourned to Monday next.
House adjourned to Monday next.