§ Bill read 3a, according to order.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) having called attention to the construction of the fourth section of the third clause of this Bill, and objected that it would have the effect of enabling persons having merely a life interest in an estate to grant leases extending long beyond their own terms, and calculated injuriously to affect the interest of the landlord, he had therefore consulted with those who had charge of the Bill in the other House, and the result was that he would now move the insertion of certain words to limit the operation of the clause so as to obviate the noble Earl's objection. The noble Duke then proposed a formal Amendment accordingly, to insert the words "not being subject to rent for the occupation of the land."
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that his object in drawing attention to that part of the Bill on a former night was to prevent a mere lessee for lives or a term of years from being entitled to dispose of the property of the head landlord for a considerable term after the lease had expired. He understood that the Amendment proposed had been made to meet that objection; but he thought that it went too far, as it might comprehend the case of tenants for leases of lives renewable for ever, on account of their paying a chief rent. What he desired was to exclude from the operation of the Bill tenants for leases of lives or for a term of years, and not tenants for leases of lives renewable for ever.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLexplained. The Amendments applied to persons paying rent for the land. The Amendment was prepared by Mr. Fergusson, the draughtsman of the Bill.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, he thought the Bill gave too great power to tenants for life of an estate with regard to building leases. They might shut out the enjoyment of the mansion by granting leases for building over a beautiful prospect for ninety-nine years; and they might lease the right of shooting over the estate up to the hall door. He thought this power ought to be restricted; and he was of opinion that granting building leases in the immediate vicinity of the mansion should not be permitted. He thought that residence was the thing most desirable for the improvement of Ireland, and 1002 that, therefore, nothing should be done to discourage it, but on the contrary.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, unless the provisions of the Bill were adopted, a serious bar would be placed to the improvement of Ireland. There was nothing in Scotland to prevent letting for nineteen and twenty-one years. As regarded the building powers, he could assure the House that the Irish Act was far more liberal than the Bill. By the 10 Geo. I., a power was given to lease for three lives, or forty-one years, the only restriction being that the land should have been previously in cultivation; and by the 11 & 12 Geo. III. c. 21, tenants for life were seised with the power to make leases for sixty-one years of the whole estate, if they thought fit. The powers in the Bill were a great restriction on the old Irish Act. One of its advantages would be to enable landlords to grant leases, though the estate might be mortgaged. Surely their Lordships would not refuse to extend to Irish landlords such reasonable powers as were already enjoyed by landlords in England and Scotland.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he would undertake to say, without fear of contradiction, that the manner in which the supporters of this Bill were reasoning was wholly at variance with the results of the experience which every noble Lord present connected with Ireland could adduce. The ground on which they seemed to proceed was the supposition that it was owing to the shortness of leases that the little improvement of land in Ireland was to be attributed; whereas the very reverse was the fact. He saw in the House many noble Lords who were connected with Ireland, and he would put it to them whether it was not the fact that the worst-improved estates in their respective vicinities were not those, the leases granted upon which were of the longest duration? The worst cases were those in which an almost perpetual interest had been created by the improvidence of former owners. In all the more ancient settlements the general leasing power was for thirty one years and three lives, or thirty-one years or three lives, and he had seen numerous settle ments of that kind; but what did they find was the increasing practice in all parts? Why, that with a view to promote the interests of both landlord and tenants the thirty-one years' power had been abandoned, and, a twenty-one years' power 1003 taken; and he asked whether their Lordships could doubt that, for all agricultural purposes, a twenty-one years' lease was not preferable. If the question was considered in an analogical point of view with respect to England and Scotland, he asked whether the ordinary nineteen years' lease in the latter, and twenty-one years' in the former, had not been found beneficial agricultural leases? But there was one argument which he thought conclusive, and which must strike every one who had been accustomed to the management of an Irish estate; and that was, if they granted a twenty-one years' lease to a tenant who was an improving and a deserving man, and who was selected with a view to his age as well as his character, they might confidently put the land into his possession with the prospect of its falling in hand during his life; but if that period were extended to thirty-one years, in nine cases out of ten the land would devolve on his child or representative. There might be cases of dispute with respect to wills or intestacies, and the landlord would consequently not have the security he ought to have with regard to the improvement of the land; therefore he really thought, as a matter of common sense and discretion, they ought to import into the Bill in respect of agricultural leases that period which had been found best adapted for the interest of agriculture, both in England and Scotland, and, above all, which would be found the best adapted for the improved circumstances of Ireland. He believed that period to be twenty-one years, and was of opinion that it would satisfy every reasonable tenant. On those grounds he should certainly urge upon their Lordships the propriety of its substitution for that now in the Bill.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was well aware that the great evil of Ireland had been, on the one hand, too long leases, and, on the other, no leases at all. Every motive for exertion on the part of the tenant had been taken away. The object of the Bill was to repeal all the laws which contemplated too long leases, and on the other hand to provide such a period as would enable the tenant, by a proper exertion, as in Scotland and England, to remunerate himself for his outlay. There was no doubt that a vast majority of the settlements in Ireland contemplated a twenty-one years' lease and a life. The introduction of an element of uncertainty 1004 was considered to be disadvantageous, and therefore the term of thirty-one years had been named.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYwas desirous that such a term should be adopted as would enable the tenant to repay himself his outlay of capital and labour. It was true that in former times thirty-one years and three lives would be the ordinary term; but at present he believed the practice in Ireland was to grant no lease at all, and where agricultural leases were granted, so far as his experience went, he had never heard of a tenant applying for a thirty-one years' lease. He himself had never granted a lease for lives, and further, he never would do so—that was to say, for an ordinary agricultural tenure. In his opinion twenty-one years was a quite sufficient term for an ordinary agricultural lease in England; and hoping to see practical agriculture in the one country assimilated to that in the other, he must say that a twenty-one years' lease afforded ample motive to improvement to an enterprising and intelligent tenant. On the other hand, he considered that they ought to reduce the powers of the tenant for life to the smallest extent that would be compatible with improvement. If his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) pressed his Motion for inserting twenty-one years instead of thirty-one, he should certainly vote in favour of the shorter term.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, the only question for the consideration of the House was, which term was best for agricultural purposes? He agreed with his noble Friend on the cross-benches (Lord Monteagle) that the old leases were the worst portion of the property of an Irish estate, as, when the lease was nearly at an end, the tenant took care not to cultivate the land in such a manner as to confer an additional value upon it when it was taken up; but both that noble Lord and the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) had stated that they considered twenty-one years would be the best lease. He could assure their Lordships that in the part of the country with which he was acquainted that would be considered by no means a satisfactory lease. The usual practice in his part of the country was to grant twenty-one years and a life, and the thirty-one years was considered an equivalent to that lease. Anything less than that he considered would be a discouragement to the tenantry. They had heard a great many objections to the addition of a life; but, if, 1005 as formerly; the life was necessary to give the tenant a vote, he doubted whether objections of such a kind would have been raised.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwas in favour of adopting the shorter term proposed by the noble Lord on the cross-benches (Lord Monteagle). Wherever in this country agriculture was good, there the lease for twenty-one years was prevalent; and why should a different system be adopted in Ireland? The fault he found with regard to the measure before their Lordships was, that it was not brought in upon the responsibility of the Government or any other party. These Bills had not, in fact, been framed by the Cabinet, nor by any one in Ireland; and any noble Lord who imagined that they would satisfy the Tenant-right League must be very ignorant of the proceedings of that body at their late meetings. In fact the Bill had its origin in nothing else than the pledges which had then been given upon the hustings at election contests in Ireland; and for the sake of affording to persons deeply pledged an escape from their pledges, the House was now asked to adopt legislation, which was not proposed as the result of any deliberation of the Cabinet. He should have thought that the events of this very Session, and even of the past week, would have convinced any statesman of the serious danger to the general government of the country of bringing forward measures that were not founded upon any responsibility, and might, therefore, not be carried through that House. He mentioned this now, because he considered that there ought to be an understanding on the part of their Lordships as to what were the Bills which they would, and what they would not, pass upon the subject. He thought there was great danger in attempting to please an extreme party by passing these Bills into law; for they knew well that if the pleasure of that extreme party was to be consulted in the other House of Parliament, these Bills would be essentially, totally, and dangerously altered; and if they were to come back to this House on the last days of the Session, as was the case last year, without Government or any other party being responsible for them, they would be in danger of inflicting an injury on Ireland which they might never be able to retrieve. At the proper time he should move that the last clause of the Bill be expunged, which would make it extend to Great Britain; and he did 1006 hope that those among their Lordships who properly appreciated and venerated the settlements in virtue of which their properties and estates had descended to them, would recollect, when he should make that Motion, that if they intended those settlements to be continued to their posterity, they must bring them into unison and harmony with the progress and custom of the times.
§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he entirely disavowed, on the part of the Government, any disposition whatever to please any extreme party in Ireland by these Bills. So far as the Government had had a hand in these Bills, no such object had existed. It had undoubtedly been sought to allay any irritation which might exist on the part of any of the people of Ireland, in consequence of injustice which they might feel had been inflicted upon them; but the object of the Bills had been simply to amend the law relating to landlord and tenant, as much for the benefit of the landlord as for that of the tenant, and to satisfy those moderate men who wished the interests of both to be consulted—and not any extreme party whatever, whether of landlords or tenants. The noble Marquess, and also the noble Earl who moved the first Amendment, had complained that these Bills had been introduced without any one being responsible for them. Now, though he (the Duke of Newcastle) had introduced these Bills in the exact form in which they were last Session received from the House of Commons, in order that they might be referred to a Select Committee, to be moulded into a form for submission to the House, yet the Government—one of its Members having presided over that Committee, and having most carefully superintended the examination of these Bills, and been a party to the Amendments which were made—the Government was not prepared to throw upon that House, or upon any other person, the responsibility of these Bills. The Government accepted the responsibility of them exactly as if they had been framed under its direction, and had been introduced in the shape in which Government Bills were generally introduced. If the noble Marquess meant to deduce from his argument that the Government intended to shift upon the House the responsibility of accepting these Bills, in whatever form they might come from the House of Commons, he could assure the noble Marquess that there was no such intention; but the 1007 Government was not prepared to offer to the House of Commons the insult of saying that they would reject any Amendments which might be introduced into the Bills in that House. As regarded these Bills, as regarding others going from this House, the Government accepted the responsibility of them in the shape in which, they were sent down to them by their Committee, and they would judge how far the principles involved in the Bills, as they now stood, were affected by any alterations which might be made in another place, and by their honest conviction as to the condition in which they came up they would be guided in the course which they should take. Upon the point immediately under discussion—the length of the leases—he thought it would be a misfortune if the House determined to make the term twenty-one years instead of thirty-one, as proposed.
THE EARL OF RODENsaid, that any one who had lived much in Ireland must know the great evils and the want of improvement which had been caused, and would be caused, by leases for thirty-one years. Irishmen were often told that it was necessary to legislate for Ireland in the same manner as for England, but the present Bill was a departure from that principle. He lamented the course taken by the Government on this question, and trusted that his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) would persevere in his Motion.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, the Bill utterly rode over all possibility of any person making such a settlement as would prevent injury being done to his property. In fact, it did away with all restrictions by which property was preserved for the enjoyment of its owner. He thought it was but reasonable that some restrictions should be inserted in regard to the erection of buildings. He should therefore move an insertion in one of the clauses of the Bill, providing that a lease of ninety-nine years for building purposes should not be granted in regard to any land within half a mile of a mansion-house.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that this evil might be prevented, by a settlement which could be made by the owner of the fee simple.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the power of making a settlement which should have such an effect would be taken away by this Bill.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWhad no idea that the Bill would have such an effect, and be expressed a wish that his noble Friend 1008 on the woolsack (the Lord Chancellor) should state to the House whether such would really be the effect of its enactments.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwished the Lord Chancellor would explain what effect this Bill would have upon future settlements.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the intention of the Bill was that tenants for life in Ireland should be placed exactly on the same footing on which tenants in tail were placed in England by the Statute of Henry VIII.—that was, to enable them to grant leases.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, his noble Friend appeared to have much satisfaction from the fact that it contained a clause that would have a retrospective operation. He would beg to propose that a clause should be inserted proposing that it would have no future effect.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, these discussions were wholly irrelevant. When their Lordships passed the Scottish Entail Bill they intended to prevent any proprietor from tying up his estate in future; and in like manner what this Bill proposed to prevent was the tying up of estates, and to prevent landlords from giving any but moderate leases.
§ On Amendment, to insert twenty-one years instead of thirty-one, their Lordships divided:—Content 20; Not Content 17: Majority 3.
§ Amendment moved by Lord Redesdale put, and negatived.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEhoped that those noble Lords who supported this measure for Ireland would agree to have it applied also to England. If the Bill was so useful in that country, it ought to be equally useful in the other. He moved that the Bill should apply to England as well as to Ireland.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORErose in perfectly good faith to second the Motion; so highly did he think of the advantages of this measure, that if he had an estate in England he would be glad to have this Bill applied to it.
§ Amendment put, and negatived.
§ Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.