Lords Sitting of 16 July 1874

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Industrial and Reformatory Schools* (180); Sanitary Laws Amendment * (181).
Second Reading—Municipal Privileges (Ireland) (132), put off'; Hosiery Manufacture (Wages)* (163); Agricultural. Tenants Improvements* (149), put off; Slaughterhouses, &c* (172); County of Hertford and Liberty of Saint Alban* (167).
Report—Building Societies* (164).
Third Reading—Personation* (138), and passed.
Royal Assent—Statute Law Revision [37 & 38 Vict. c. 35]; Apothecaries Act Amendment [37 & 38 Vict. c. 34]: Conjugal Rights (Scotland) Act Amendment [37 & 38 Vict. c. 31]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863, Amendment [37 & 38 Vict. c. 32]; Leases and Sales of Settled Estates [37 & 38 Vict. c. 33]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation [37 & 38 Vict. c. lxxxvii.]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order.[37 & 38 Vict. c. Ixxxviii.]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) [37 & 38 Vict. c. Ixxxix.].

MUNICIPAL PRIVILEGES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 132.) (The Lord O'Hagan.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, when I undertook the conduct of the Bill which I shall ask your Lordships to read a second time, I had no reason to believe that I should need to press its proposals by any laboured argument. It aims to assimilate the municipal law of England and of Ireland, and to restore to important institutions, which are common to both countries, an identity of privilege and action which once existed and was unhappily destroyed. If it be accepted by Parliament, it will confer on the corporations of certain counties of cities and counties of towns, in Ireland, the power of appointing their own sheriffs and clerks of the peace and bestowing, on persons distinguished by intellectual eminence or public service, the honorary freedom which is in the gift of similar bodies in other districts of the Empire. It seeks to restore those rights only to six Irish communities, whilst they are enjoyed by at least 20 of the municipalities of England, many of which are inferior in population and social importance to those in Ireland, which desire and are denied them. Before the Corporate Reform Act, the old corporations possessed those rights, and they were conceded in the first draft of the measure of Lord Melbourne. But when it was introduced, party feeling was strong and fierce. In this and the other House of Parliament, there was great excitemention the discussions which attended all its stages. It was bitterly opposed by powerful minorities and heated orators, for many troubled years. Its possible mischiefs were enormously exaggerated; its possible benefits were magnified, perhaps, overmuch; and it was carried at last, as is usual in cases of the kind, at the expense of a compromise, involving, amongst other things, the creation of a civil inequality between England and Ireland on the matters which this Bill submits for the consideration of your Lordships. By its provisions, that inequality will be done away, and the Irish subjects of the Queen will be relieved from the rankling sense of inferiority and injustice which such invidious distinctions are ever calculated to produce when they are established without reason and maintained without necessity. My Lords, a measure having such a worthy purpose is surely entitled to your favourable attention, and its history in the House of

  91
  Commons ought, in my judgment, to put its acceptance here beyond all controversy. In that House, it received the support of Her Majesty's Government. In its principle and its details, it was sustained by the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. It was settled by a Select Committee, presided over by the Chief Secretary, with the aid of my noble Friend his predecessor (Lord Hartington), and many other able and distinguished men; and it comes up to your Lordships, having passed the Commons without a division on any one of its clauses. Under such circumstances, I might well have supposed that its adoption by your Lordships would have been unresisted; but I grieve to find that this is not so. The noble Earl opposite means to move its rejection, and, whatever may be the issue of the effort, I cannot but think it had been better spared in the interests of sound policy and the promotion of that kindly feeling and mutual confidence which you should strive to cultivate between the English and the Irish people. I trust your Lordships will not countenance an opposition so unwise in its conception, and so likely to be disastrous in its result. You will not reject a Bill which is recommended by such a weight of authority, unless there be coercive reasons for setting at nought the decision of the Government, confirmed by the sanction of the House of Commons, and applauded by men of all parties in that House, as inaugurating a policy of justice and conciliation. But, the case does not rest on authority merely. If there had been no such full consideration and deliberate approval of the measure, I would appeal to your Lordships confidently to adopt it on its merits. It asks that you should deal equally with the people of a United Kingdom which will find its connection best consolidated by the extension of common privileges to all within its bounds. And, for that great purpose, it is surely important that unwarrantable distinctions in the powers and attributes of its municipalities should not be permitted to exist. To nations, such municipalities have always been the kindliest fosterers, and the surest guards, of civil liberty and healthy social progress. In the old Roman times, and in the Middle Age, and equally in the modern world, they have proved themselves the aptest in-
  92
  struments of civilization—stimulating energy, forming and training opinion, teaching self-respect and self-dependence, and making men recognize the sacredness of public trust and the nobleness of spending themselves in the discharge of public duty. But I shall not waste more words by speaking further in the abstract of such a subject. I advert to it at all, only for the purpose of saying that if in England, who rests so largely, for her greatness and her freedom, on the old foundations of her system of municipal self-government, it needs to be maintained; in Ireland, the wholesome development of that system is not less desirable. The things of which I have spoken—the creation of a sound opinion, the nurturing of the spirit of self-dependence, the recognition of the seriousness of public responsibility, sound discipline in the conduct of public affairs—these things are of vast consequence to Ireland, and to aid in the achievement of them all, her municipal institutions should be made assistant in the spirit of a large and liberal statesmanship. Whatever may have been the results of legislation heretofore in this direction, we have no reason to despair of their improvement in the future; and that improvement will surely be promoted by a change, which, whilst it will enlarge power and increase responsibility, will also knit together more closely the members of the Empire, by giving them a greater community of action and of interest. Assimilation, my Lords, in the laws and customs of these Kingdoms is always desirable, when it can properly be attained. Often, it cannot be. And regard must be had to the varying incidents and the changing phases of our social life, when we are required to follow in one country the example of another. There are differences in character, and circumstance, and progress which need to be considered, when we are asked to assimilate; and assimilation, merely for the sake of assimilation, would sometimes be a mischievous mistake. But primâ facie, and in the absence of strong-reason to the contrary, it is plainly desirable for the general interest; and in the case before your Lordships, I pray you to consider that there really is no reason at all for meting a different measure to England and to Ireland. What, in this regard, is good for the one coun-

  93
  try ought to be good for the other; and if there be ground for denying Ireland the right she demands, on the same ground it should be withdrawn from England. What suggestion has there been, reasonably justifying the denial? There was none in the House of Commons; there was none before the Select Committee, in the evidence of the witnesses which, on the contrary, was all favourable to the claim. There is none in the Report of that Committee. There has been none anywhere, until this moment. The Irish corporations exercise large powers—large powers of taxation and large powers of patronage. They appoint important and highly-paid officials, with much authority and control over affairs. They appoint officers whose election clothes them even with judicial functions. And they have appointed those officers fairly and well, and with a proper regard to the efficiency of the public service. Why should they be refused the right of appointment to inferior positions? Why should it be insultingly asserted, in the absence of all proof, that they would misuse that right and pervert it to purposes of personal advantage or public mischief? What ground is there for the slanderous imputation that, in such circumstances, they would act with less integrity or independence than their English neighbours? What pretence is there for believing, that powers which have been exercised, for ages, without complaint, in some of the smallest boroughs in England, cannot be safely entrusted to the great municipalities of Dublin, Cork, or Limerick? And if there be no satisfactory answers to these questions, why should you continue to gall a proud and sensitive people by maintaining an inequality which brands them as inferior to their fellowmen? My Lords, as I have said, I have sought in vain for reasons to justify such a course in the debates of the House of Commons, or the deliberations of the Select Committee on this Bill. I have found them presented only in three or four Petitions, which have come from citizens of Dublin and Chambers of Commerce and Conservative Associations in Limerick and Cork. The Chambers are private establishments, without any representative authority, and of the Conservative Associations I know nothing. But, the reasons they allege
  94
  seem to be mainly two. They say, that a sheriff popularly elected may harm the administration of justice in executing writs and summoning juries improperly, and that the power of making honorary freemen may be used for fraudulent purposes in connection with the corporation. Now, as to the sheriffs—In the first place, I repudiate the gratuitous assumption, that men fit for the discharge of the duties of the shrievalty would not be chosen in Ireland—men quite as fit as are chosen in England by the corporations of small communities having no sort of claim to superiority over their Irish co-mates. But next, so far as writs and executions are concerned, the sheriff can do no evil for which he is not answerable. And, further still, in the greater number of the six towns with which only the Bill is conversant, the evidence before the Select Committee clearly shows, that he has little of such business or such responsibility—so little, indeed, that Mr. De Moleyns, a Queen's Counsel of the highest character and largest experience—concurring with the testimony of Dr. Hancock, one of the ablest of living statisticians—described their official occupations as "illusory." Clearly, on this score, there is no good ground for the objection. And then, as to the summoning of juries, there are the plainest answers. If by any chance it should appear that there is the slightest danger of a miscarriage in any criminal trial within a limited jurisdiction, the statute law gives to the public prosecutor absolute power of laying the venue in the adjoining county, in which the city sheriff is wholly without influence. But, further, under an Act which I had myself the honour of introducing to your Lordships, the Irish sheriffs have no longer any power of selecting jurors; they are merely ministerial officers, and they cannot, by possibility, affect the constitution of the panel. This is the law; and I believe it to be a wise and a beneficent law, which the opinion of the country will not permit to be reversed. I know the violence of opposition which that salutary Act evoked. I know the denunciations and the scoffings and the fictions which were employed to discredit it; but I believe its principle to be impregnable, and, until it is repealed, the main argument against this Bill has no colour of feasibility. Even if the resolutions of the Committee

  95
  on that statute—the single one of which, really adverse to it, was carried only by a casting vote—should be acted upon by Parliament, the change would not restore the ancient system which gave official power to manufacture juries at discretion, for the Report declares the necessity of securing "absolute impartiality" in the empanelling of juries, and recommends the use of the Ballot, in criminal as in civil cases. Therefore, there is nothing in this objection; and when I add that the Bill enables the Lord Lieutenant to supersede the sheriff if fit occasion should arise, I think I have abundantly disposed of any pretence which can be urged, in the apparent interest of the administration of justice. As to the power of making honorary freemen, the objection is too idle to need serious reply. The clause was inserted, because it has been found unpleasant that Irish corporations should be unable to compliment persons of high reputation, or public benefactors, as they are complimented in Scotland and England. It was thought too bad that the Irish Sir Garnet Wolseley could not receive in his native land the distinction bestowed by an English municipality, and I do not believe that your Lordships will grudge the privilege which would have enabled his compatriots to honour him and gratify themselves. The suggestion of possible fraud is foolish, and the whole matter, on this branch of it, is too trivial to warrant grave discussion. Indeed, the Bill claims little, and, if it passes into a law, will not accomplish very much. But it touches equality and justice. It enables your Lordships to do a graceful and a gracious act. It tends to assimilate and identify the institutions of Great Britain and Ireland, and so to consolidate the Union you desire to maintain. I ask you to pause before you reject this Bill, and so disappoint expectations fairly formed and strongly encouraged by the past action of Parliament. You may adopt the measure with perfect safety, and with the great advantage of demonstrating a kindly feeling and a generous confidence, which will not be without appreciation and response. You have a rare opportunity of dignified conciliation and concession. You can conciliate without admission of weakness or risk of injury, and conciliate without compromise of principle or
  96
  honour. I move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord O'Hagan.)
  THE EARL OF BELMORE, in moving that the Bill be read a second time this day three months, said, he should endeavour to show—first, that it was inexpedient that it should pass at all, and secondly, that even were it ever so desirable, that that was not the proper time. The Bill dealt with three matters in connection with the counties of cities in Ireland—namely, with the sheriffs, the clerks of the peace, and honorary burgesses. Of these, the first and the last were the most important. As for the clerks of the peace, had they only been concerned, probably the promoters of the Bill would not have taken the trouble to bring it in, and if they had done so, he (the Earl of Belmore) would have been very unlikely to have taken up their Lordships' time by opposing it. With regard to the sheriffs, the Bill proposed to restore a state of things which was done away with by the Municipal Corporations Reform Act, 1840. By that Act the sheriffs of counties of cities were placed on the same footing as the sheriffs of the counties at large, who were nominated by the Crown. Prior to that Act they were elected by the corporations, and this was the power which the promoters of this Bill sought to restore. In 1840, the reform as regarded the sheriffs was made by an Amendment in this House, moved by Lord Lyndhurst. The question of municipal reform had been before the House several times. The noble and learned Lord had mentioned the year 1835. He (the Earl of Belmore) had not gone back so far as that, but, at any rate, there was an annual Bill from 1836 to 1840, when the existing Act was passed. In 1836 an Amendment appeared to have been carried in the House of Commons, taking the power of nominating sheriffs from the corporations, and vesting it in the Crown. The Government seemed to have adopted this Amendment in that year, for he found at page 1125 of vol. xxxii. of Hansard (3rd series), Viscount Melbourne, the Prime Minister, in moving the second reading of the Bill, using these words:—
  "The Bill, by the 53rd Clause, invested the Lord Lieutenant with the power of appointing Sheriff's in the cities which were counties of

  97
  themselves who were elected by the English Corporation Bill by the town-councillors. It was hardly necessary that he should explain to their Lordships, it would he much better that the appointment to an office so intimately connected with the administration of justice should be vested in the Crown, than that it should be determined by election."
  He (the Earl of Belmore) thought that this was tolerably strong language. Passing by the years 1837 and 1838, in 1839, on the 25th of July, in Committee on the Municipal Corporations Reform Bill, he found Lord Lyndhurst using the following language—Lord Melbourne having mean while apparently changed his mind:—
  "First, with respect to the sheriffs. The appointments of the sheriffs in the counties of cities and counties of towns in Ireland should be the same in such cases as in counties generally. According to this Bill it was proposed that three persons should be recommended by the town council, and if the Lord Lieutenant should not be satisfied, three others should be selected. He wished to have the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant in such cases, but he certainly thought that the town councils were unfitted to perform such a duty as was desired to be conferred upon them. He should therefore propose that the appointment of sheriffs in the counties of cities and counties of towns should take place in the same manner as in the counties of Ireland generally."
  An earlier Amendment of the noble and learned Lord having been carried by a large majority, this one appeared to have been accepted without a division. In 1840, the year in which a Bill dealing with the subject actually became law, Lord Lyndhurst referred apparently to what had passed in the previous year, although Hansard made him mention the year before that, when he (the Earl of Belmore) did not find that the point about the sheriffs was raised in this House. Lord Lyndhurst said—
  "That Bill had been amended in their Lordships' House, with the assent of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, and he saw the same reasons for proposing an Amendment similar to that which had before received the assent of their Lordships, of which reasons he conceived the strongest to be, that as the sheriff's duty was magisterial and connected with the highest department of the administration of justice within the law, that office ought not to be subjected to the mere choice of the persons composing the Corporation, but ought to be vested in the first magistrate of the country. He was not prepared to find that this clause of the Bill should, after the discussion which had taken place on the occasion alluded to, be restored to its original state. He should now move as an Amendment that the clause be altered, so that the appointment of the sheriff of corporations in the cities, boroughs, and towns of counties in Ireland, should be vested, as was
  98
  now the practice with respect to the sheriffs of I counties throughout Ireland, in the Lord-lieutenant."—[3 Hansard, Iv. 191–2.]
  The Amendment was agreed to. He had thus shown that the House of Lords was consistent in maintaining the principle advocated by Lord Lyndhurst. He would now draw their Lordships' attention to the importance attached to it by an even greater man than Lord Lyndhurst, one who, whatever individuals might think of him, was certainly not a bigot. Sir Robert Peel concluded a speech on the 8th February 1837, on a Motion to bring in a Municipal Corporations Reform Bill into the House of Commons with these words—
  "There is only one other point to which I wish to refer, and as the best reward for the patience with which the House has done me the honour to listen to me, I will confine myself to that, and ask how the granting of municipal reform will interfere with the administration of justice? These corporations are to have the appointment of the sheriffs, and consequently the chief influence in the administration of justice; and let me ask what will be the consequence of such a concession in the present heated and feverish state of Ireland? What will be its effect on the minority, but to deprive them of that free and independent action which is necessary for the administration of justice? And let me appeal again to that same Fox who warned his audience against mistaking paper regulations for practical institutions—against attempting to establish any identity of institutions in countries of different habits and different manners, and distracted by religious jealousy, thereby interfering with the administration of justice and the protection of equal laws, and not giving that justice which it was the duty of every legislature to give to the minority as well as the majority."—[3 Hansard, xxxvi. 401.]
  He (the Earl of Belmore) would ask, were there now no differences? It was true that there was no longer any question of Protestant ascendancy, which in a legal sense had ceased to exist, but were there no religious jealousies? was there no party feeling? It was notorious that in the Dublin Corporation, party feelings ran high. He would now refer to the Petitions against the Bill. In the House of Commons there were no Petitions, but in this House there were some, both for and against the Bill, which showed, he thought, that public opinion had not been attracted to it when it passed the second reading elsewhere; and which quite justified this House in considering, and him in asking the House to consider, if the Bill ought to be allowed to proceed. The noble and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan) said, that the opposition to the Bill was foolish, and

  99
  he had treated the Petitions against it lightly. He (the Earl of Belmore) would not refer to those which came from bodies such as the Dublin Constitutional Club, because they might be said to be of a mere party nature; but were such bodies as the Dublin Chamber of Commerce or the similar bodies in Limerick and Cork not entitled to consideration? The Dublin Chamber of Commerce said in their Petition, a copy of which he held in his hand—
  "That in the present state of this Country the proposed transfer of the appointments of Sheriff's and Clerks of the Peace from the Crown would he a most dangerous experiment, and highly detrimental to the due administration of Justice.
  "That inasmuch as the duty of executing the Writs of the Crown and the judgments of the Courts of Law, and, it may he, the whole practical working of the Jury System will devolve upon the Sheriff, his appointment ought not to be left to the chances of Party or Political Elections.
  "That in the levying of Executions for debt in large commercial transactions, a very heavy pecuniary responsibility frequently rests on the Sheriff; and it is therefore necessary that only persons of established social position and property should be appointed to the office.
  "That it is very unlikely this result will be attained by a popular election such as proposed, or that suitable persons will consent under such circumstances to he put in nomination for this office, with its attendant expenses and responsibilities.
  "That the provision in the Bill for conferring on the Town Councils the power of making an unlimited number of Honorary Burgesses is highly objectionable, as it would enable persons having no qualification as ratepayers or residents to he appointed to corporate offices, now requiring such qualification, and to be elected on the Town Council and to the office of Mayor to the exclusion of duly qualified citizens."
  As regarded the Petitions in favour of the Bill, it appeared that that of the Corporation of Dublin was agreed to by a bare quorum, collected with difficulty, and after waiting upwards of an hour, whilst that from Cork was only passed by suspending the standing orders. The noble and learned Lord had referred to the Select Committee on the Bill in the House of Commons. The evidence taken before that Committee had been communicated to this House, and he (the Earl of Belmore) had read it. It showed, not a case for the Bill, but how great an anomaly there was in maintaining these separate jurisdictions at all. At Carrickfergus, which bad, for some reason of which he was not aware, dropped out of the Bill in the Select Committee, it appeared that in 1872, 426
  100
  jurors were summoned, of whom 46 were required for fiscal business, and the remaining 380 for trials of which there were none; in Kilkenny 620 jurors were summoned to try an average of two prisoners in each Court; and at Drogheda, 632 for an average of 1⅔ prisoners in each Court. At the same time the average number of records were, at Carrickfergus none; at Kilkenny, one; and Drogheda, two. The noble and learned Lord said there would be nothing for these sheriffs to do, which seemed to him (the Earl of Belmore) to be a strong reason against the Bill. No doubt Dublin was a large city, and he did not object to its having a separate jurisdiction, but he thought that these other small jurisdictions ought to be abolished. His noble and learned Friend had referred to the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Juries. It was true that by a recent Act passed by the noble Lord himself, the power of selecting juries had been taken from the sheriffs, and an alphabetical system substituted; but that arrangement had worked so badly that it could hardly be said to have worked at all. The Petitioners against the Bill had referred to a possibility of the sheriff having again to select juries, and the Committee of the House of Commons had recommended a return to the old system with certain modifications for securing impartiality. He (the Earl of Belmore) thought that the noble and learned Lord had failed to show any reason why this retrogade measure should pass, and he concluded by moving that it be read a second time that day three months.
  An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Earl of Belmore.)
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he should feel it his duty to support the Amendment. The reasons put forward by his noble and learned Friend (Lord O'Hagan) in favour of the Bill were not reasons of practical utility, but sentimental reasons. The difficulties connected with such a change were considerable. One thing important to consider was, whether the same state of feeling which existed in England and Scotland in respect of municipal institutions and privileges existed in Ireland also, so as to make it desirable to extend to Ireland the same privileges as in the sister Kingdoms? He thought it plain it did

  101
  not. Elections would be often decided on political and religious grounds rather than on personal fitness, thus aggravating the dissentions which now un-happily were frequent. It was true that in England the right of electing their sheriffs enjoyed by counties of cities, and counties of towns which possessed that right before the Municipal Reform Act, had not been taken away by that Act, while the right of cities and towns in Ireland similarly privileged was taken away by the Irish Act in 1840, yet the system had not been extended in England; and that he thought was an argument against restoring it to the Irish cities, from whom it had been taken. Petitions very influentially signed, from Limerick and other cities, had been presented against the Bill, and there was no strong expression of public feeling in its favour. He believed that in voting against the Bill he was only acting in accordance with the best interests of the people of Ireland.
  LORD LISGARwas for equalizing the institutions of both countries as far as possible; but he doubted very much whether the appointment of Sheriffs was a privilege which ought to be allowed to any municipal body; and certainly he thought that in Ireland it was not desirable to entrust the municipal corporations with the appointment of persons connected with the administration of justice. He had presented a Petition from citizens of Dublin against the Bill. That was not a party Petition, but was, as he was informed, numerously signed by men of different parties. As to sentimental reasons in favour of the Bill, there had been of late too much sentiment and too much sensational legislation in reference to Ireland. Many persons in Ireland viewed this Bill with more alarm than he did himself. Very competent authorities had given it as their opinion that in England those small jurisdictions should be abolished; but no Government had been powerful enough to abolish them, such was the influence which they derived from their local patronage. But if they could not abolish these jurisdictions, they ought not to extend them. Take the case of one of the towns included in this Bill—Drogheda. It had 14,000 inhabitants. It had a Grand Jury and a Corporation, one of which bodies expended £4,000 a year and the other £3,000. There was a Secretary for the Grand Jury and a
  102
  Town Clerk for the Corporation. In addition, it was now proposed that the Corporation should have power to appoint a Sheriff and a Clerk of the Peace. On the whole, he thought the subject was one which the Government would do well to take into their own hands. If, however, this was not done, and the Bill passed the second reading, he would suggest that it be referred to a Select. Committee, in order that the subject might be considered in all its bearings, with some reference to the course intended to be taken in regard to the Jury Laws in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF BANDONopposed the Bill, remarking that he had presented a Petition from Cork—one of the cities that were counties in themselves, and which consequently was immediately interested in the question—against the Bill. The Irish Municipal Corporations exercised the power they already possessed before proposing to extend them. The proposal now under their Lordships' consideration was introduced in the other House by the leader of the Home Rule party, a party who were anxious to pass any measure which would give increased power to the Municipal Corporations of Ireland; and he ventured to suggest that before passing this Bill they would do well to inquire how these Corporations had exercised the powers which they had possessed for the last 35 years. What Ireland required was not a continuance of sensational legislation, but, rather, sober measures calculated to increase the material prosperity of the country and add to the happiness of the people.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that their Lordships were entitled to know before voting on this Bill, whether or not it had the approval of the Government, for he held that whenever measures affecting the administration of justice were brought forward the opinion of the Government ought to be clearly stated. The necessity for such a course was the stronger on the present occasion, because this was one of several similar Bills which had been introduced, and with regard to which the Government had taken different lines of action He thought that both in that and the other House of Parliament they should be anxious to remove all unnecessary differences between the two countries, and he thought that a good primâ facie case had been made out by his noble

  103
  and learned Friend (Lord O'Hagan) in favour of this Bill, but he thought the Government ought to say distinctly what was their view. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than that the Government should in the other House of Parliament assent to a Bill of a popular character with regard to Ireland, and then leave their Lordships in the invidious position of rejecting the measure in the absence of either support or opposition from the Government.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not think Her Majesty's Government deserved the rebuke they had just received from the noble Earl (Earl Granville), inasmuch as it was not unnatural that he should have refrained from addressing the House until their Lordships had had the opportunity of hearing what were the opinions of those noble Lords who were more intimately connected with Ireland on the subject. The noble Earl might, too, he thought, have seen that he was about to address their Lordships when the noble Earl (Earl Granville) himself rose, and that he gave way to him. He quite agreed with the noble Earl—and the argument was a plausible one—that in regard to municipal corporations in Ireland there should be granted such privileges as, under present circumstances, were possessed by the municipal corporations in England. But a circumstance had occurred which had somewhat altered their position towards the measure, and as it was one of considerable importance, he wished for a moment to direct their Lordships' attention to it. He alluded to the Report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons in reference to the duty of empanelling jurors for the administration of justice in the criminal Courts, and which was one of the main functions appertaining to the office of Sheriff. It was proposed in the Bill to give to six counties of towns—Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Kilkenny, Waterford, and Drogheda—the right of electing their own Sheriffs. Now, he believed he was right in saying that the jurisdiction exercised within the ambit of these towns was very large, if not the largest portion of the criminal jurisdiction of Ireland:—so that the consideration of how far they should modify the sys-; tern of summoning jurors in those places became an important one. Now, there was no question which excited
  104
  greater interest in Ireland than that which related to the summoning of jurors. It was a mistake to suppose that the Bills of 1838 and 1840 proposed to confer upon corporate towns the choice of the Sheriffs. On the contrary, the provision made was that they should submit to the Lord Lieutenant the names of three burgesses whom they might consider fit and proper persons to serve the office of Sheriff, out of which the Lord Lieutenant was to select one. If the Lord Lieutenant rejected all, they were to submit the names of three other persons; and in the event of these being all rejected, the Lord Lieutenant was to appoint persons of his own selection. That proposal met with the approval of the House of Commons, but was not approved by their Lordships' House, and the arrangement that the Lord Lieutenant should nominate the Sheriffs was adopted. To revert to the question of the summoning of jurors. Of course, under the then existing system the Sheriff had exercised considerable discretion in constituting the jury panel, and had continued to do so until the Bill of the noble and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan) became law. After that time, what was called a dictionary arrangement was made, the names of the jurors being taken in alphabetical order—the office of the Sheriff becoming in that respect little more than ministerial. It was, beyond question, most important that in all cases of a political kind the jurors should be summoned as indifferently as possible. Now, he wished to speak of corporate bodies—to whom the power and duty in question was practically transferred—with all possible respect; but their Lordships could not but be aware that in no place were political subjects more keenly discussed than in those corporations, and that those subjects might become and did become connected with the administration of criminal justice in those cases which over and over again occurred in Ireland. In order therefore to guard against the possibility of a Sheriff being influenced by any bias of that kind, it had become desirable that some change should be made in the method of summoning jurors, and the question was in what direction that change should be made. A number of suggestions had been made by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, who had considered and reported upon the jury sys-

  105
  tem in Ireland. They stated unanimously that it was indispensable to the due administration of justice that the system of providing juries should be such as to secure perfect impartiality in respect of the jury panels, and—with three dissentients—they added that the system of summoning by the "dictionary" process had not worked well and required alteration. They also stated as their opinion that the distinction between the jury lists for counties and counties of towns ought to be abolished. If the second reading of this Bill were passed, he thought it would be necessary to refer the Bill to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House to consider those suggestions; and he asked whether it was likely they could expect a Report upon the subject during the present Session?
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord on the part of the Government was tantamount to moving that the Bill should be read a second time that day three months. The measure had a singular Parliamentary history. It obtained the decided support of Her Majesty's Government, especially of the Irish Government, in the other House; it was referred to a Select Committee, presided over by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and on its coming back to the House it was approved by Her Majesty's Government, and was passed with the favour of both sides of the House. It was, he thought, rather extraordinary that a measure which had received the support of the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland when it was before the House of Commons should have received such hard treatment from the Lord Chancellor when it came up to their Lordships' House. No doubt, since the measure was read a third time in the House of Commons a Committee had reported on the present Jury Laws of Ireland, and in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government their Report had changed the whole situation, and, having supported the Bill in one House, the Government were determined to oppose it in the other. As far as he could see, there was nothing in the Report of that Committee which could help their Lordships to decide the question whether it was safe to give the power of electing their Sheriffs to the corporate bodies of these six Irish
  106
  towns—and since no doubt the Chief Secretary and Attorney General must have had the jury question in their minds when they expressed their approval of the Bill, he could see no reason why their Lordships should not read it a second time at once. He protested against the assumption that the legislation of the last two years with regard to Irish juries was to be reversed, and he warned the Government that they were running the risk of inflating a very small matter into one of great importance as regarded the feelings of the Irish people.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 56: Majority 10.
  Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

  CONTENTS.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Elphinstone, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Emly, L.

  Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)

  Exeter, M.

  Hatherton, L.

  Houghton, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Derby, E.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Devon, E.

  Granville, E.

  Monson, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  O'Hagan, L. [Teller.]

  Malmesbury, E.

  Ponsonby, E. (E. Bessborough.)

  Morley, E.

  Portarlington, E.

  Robartes, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Selborne, L.

  Card well, V.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Bagot, L.

  Carlingford, L.

  Stratheden and Camp-L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Walsingham, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Wenlock, L. [Teller,]

  De Mauley, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  De Ros, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chan-dos, D.

  Bantry, E.

  Belmore, E. [Teller.]

  Dartrey, E.

  Bath, M.

  Doncastor, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Bristol, M.

  Hertford, M.

  Winchester, M.

  Harrowby, E.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Bandon, E.

  Macclesfield, E.

  107

  Mansfield, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Powis, E.

  Foxford, E. (E. Limerick.) [Teller.]

  Rosse, E.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Grinstead, L. (H. Enniskillen.)

  Stradbroke, E.

  Hampton, L.

  Bangor, V.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker)

  Bridport, V.

  Canterbury, V.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Kenlis, L.(M. Headford.)

  Lilford, E.

  De Vesci, V.

  Lisgar, L.

  Gough, V.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Redesdale, L.

  Saltersford, E. (E. Courtown.)

  Bloomfield, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Sinclair, E.

  Sondes, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Templemore, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Crofton, L.

AGRICULTURAL TENANTS IMPROVEMENTS BILL—(No. 149).
(The Marquess of Huntly.)
AGRICULTURAL TENANTS IMPROVEMENTS BILL—(No. 149).

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he admitted that legislation was not so much required for the protection of tenants of largo landed estates in the hands of individual owners, as for those of estates held by corporate bodies and trustees. These were neither few in number nor small in extent, and in respect of these the operation of the Bill would be most beneficial. In the case of those held by corporations, there were generally no funds by which the necessary improvements could be effected; and in the case of land held in trust, there were obvious prudential reasons why the trustees were unwilling or unable to do so. He thought, therefore, that any legislation by which the tenants should be enabled to make the improvements themselves, without the risk of losing their money, could not but be of public advantage. The effect of the present state of the law was most injurious. He knew a case of an estate in one of the Midland Counties which was devised by will to a tenant for life, and then to trustees for 21 years. The consequence was that nothing had been done for years; the buildings were in a ruinous condition, and the land was utterly unimproved. He had obtained some in-
  108
  formation with respect to the estates held by corporations in Scotland, and as the result of his inquiries he found that in the county of Aberdeen, out of a rental of £267,000, no less than £160,000 was held by trustees or corporate bodies. Again, in Edinburgh, out of estates the rentals of which amounted to £580,000 a-year, property to the value of £163,000 a-year was held by corporations; and with respect to Renfrewshire, the proportion was as £560,000 to £112,000. If, therefore, that was the case with respect to two or three Scotch counties, they might judge of the value of the land held by corporate bodies throughout the whole of the Kingdom. The object of the present Bill was to secure for agricultural tenants the value of any improvements which they made during their occupancy, whether permanent or temporary, on a scale proportioned to the durability of the improvements. He had tried to keep two things in view—non-interference with legal customs and freedom of contract. From all that he had heard, there was not the slightest chance of success in endeavouring to import any new custom into a part of the country in which it did not previously exist. All attempts that had been made hitherto in that direction had completely failed. He had, therefore, inserted in the Bill a clause to the effect that there should be no compensation for any improvement made under Act or custom. The next point which he had in view was the maintenance of freedom of contract. He had been told that he had not attained that object in the Bill; but it was certainly intended to secure it, and if it did not in its present shape, he should be glad to see a clause inserted which would do so. He admitted that there were great difficulties in framing a measure of this kind, so as to avoid making it too free on the one hand and too restricted on the other. What he proposed was, that when a contract was silent upon those improvements which were mentioned in the Schedules to the Bill, it should come into operation. The 4th clause provided that—
  "This Act shall not apply to anything as an improvement which a tenant is by a contract of tenancy taking effect before the commencement of this Act expressly or by necessary implication hound or forbidden to do."
  He proposed to insert in the clause the words, "in respect to which any con-

  109
  tract of tenancy makes no express provision"—this would avoid all appearance of interfering with contract. Their Lordships would agree with him that it would be desirable to have a state of law under which there should be a constant improvement on the land, and any measure which would effect that object would be a great boon to all classes. He had divided the improvements contemplated by this Act into two classes—permanent improvements, which went to benefit the owner of the land—such as drainage, building, reclamation of waste land, fencing, roads, cottages, farm buildings, and the introduction of water or steam-power to farm buildings—and temporary improvements, such as sub-soiling, removing of stones, surface draining, manuring by phosphates amounting to at least 10 cwt. of bones per acre, or the equivalent thereof in phosphate of lime, liming, laying down permanent grass, &c, and so on, which should be done within seven years before the termination of tenancy. He proposed that where any differences arose between landlord and tenant with respect to the value of the improvement, or its duration, that it should be decided by an arbitrator appointed by the Inclosure Commissioners. He was told that the weak part of the Bill was that which made the Inclosure Commissioners the authority under the Bill. He preferred them because they were thoroughly conversant with the matter, and had the management of the Land Improvement Act. The award of the arbitrator so appointed would be conclusive. A tenant proposing to make a permanent improvement would serve a notice upon his landlord, and upon the Inclosure Commissioners. If no objection were made he would be allowed to proceed, subject to inspection, and when the work was finished he would receive a certificate from the Inclosure Commissioners, and upon receiving the certificate would be entitled to receive on the expiring of his tenancy compensation in respect of the value of the unexhausted benefit. In respect of temporary improvements he would also be entitled to compensation, but only to the annual average value of the fertilizers or corn mentioned in the Schedule. The compensation would be subject to deductions for dilapidation, and the tenant would be obliged to hand over the works in tenantable repair.
  110
  The landlord would also be allowed to charge the holding with an annuity upon certain terms and conditions. The matter was not new to their Lordships. In the Sessions of 1849, 1850, and 18,51, a Bill had been introduced which was referred to a Select Committee. In 1848 Mr. Pusey's Committee reported in favour of a Bill of this kind, as being likely to extend employment and improve agriculture. The Prime Minister, the other night, expressed an opinion in favour of the general principle, and the Chambers of Agriculture had passed resolutions in favour of giving the tenant-farmers compensation for unexhausted improvements. He had, therefore, brought forward the present Bill, believing that the matter could not be discussed by their Lordships without benefit to the interests of agriculture in Great Britain.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he could not but think the noble Marquess would have exercised a wise discretion if he had abstained from laying upon their Lordships' Table this crude and ill-considered Bill, the more especially as it was his impression that he had neither the wish nor the expectation that the Bill should pass a second reading; because the noble Marquess must be perfectly aware that at this period of the Session it was impossible for this measure, dealing with so large a subject and involving such important interests, to pass into law during the short remainder of the Session. It was, indeed, a most objectionable practice, and one which he strongly deprecated, to bring in Bills without either the hope or expectation of carrying them. He ventured to think that the noble Marquess would have done better if he had reduced his views into the form of a pamphlet, or if he had called a meeting of his friends and tenantry in A berdeenshire and enunciated views which possibly might not have been unpalatable to some of his friends in that part of the country. He objected, however, to bringing in a Bill without the least intention of carrying it, because it would give rise to hopes and expectations out-of-doors the realization of which there was no possibility of fulfilling. He thought, moreover, that questions of this kind should be dealt

  111
  with on the responsibility of the Executive Government, and with a fair prospect on their part of carrying a Bill to a successful issue. With regard to the measure itself, it seemed to him to be a kind of exaggerated Irish Land Act. The most arbitrary tenant-right 'which had over been introduced was milk-and-water compared with this measure. Surely the landlords of Great Britain had done nothing to their tenantry which warranted any attempt at dealing with them in the manner in which they would be if this Bill passed into law. He was not going to be drawn into a discussion on the subject of tenant-right, nor did he think this a fitting occasion on which to enter on a discussion of that matter, further than it was affected by the Bill now under consideration. The noble Marquess himself stated that this measure was not required for the vast majority of the landed estates in this country, but to certain lands held by corporations. Why, then, if it was not required for landed property generally should it be forced upon the attention of Parliament at all? The noble Marquess said that, from some information he had received from Scotland, it was required for the purpose of enabling the tenants to obtain compensation from certain bodies of trustees. He was not prepared to admit that it was; but if so, surely the better course for the noble Marquess to have pursued would have been to introduce some Bill to relieve those particular tenants from the disabilities under which he conceived them to labour, and to assimilate their condition to that of other tenants. The noble Marquess told them that the Bill did not interfere with customs. Why, it interfered with every custom that existed in the country from Land's End to John o' Great's. The noble Marquess also said it did not interfere with the rights of property and the freedom of contract. That was the very thing it did interfere with, for if it did not the Bill would not be worth the paper on which it was printed. It not only dealt with property and freedom of contract, but, in point of fact, it put an end altogether to freedom of contract. The noble Marquess admitted that the 4th clause was obscure, and that it would require the insertion of words to make it clearer. He (the Duke of Richmond) did not think that any words he might put in would make it sufficiently clear to prevent its being considered an inter-
  112
  ference with the rights of property. What did the noble Marquess do? He handed over the whole property of the country to the tenants, and took it entirely out of the hands of the landowners; or rather, he might say, he took it out of the hands of the landowners and placed it in the hands of the Inclosure Commissioners. Now, one of the Inclosure Commissioners he knew to be an excellent practical farmer, and against the other two he knew nothing; but, at the same time, he objected to hand over his property to these three gentlemen, because—without any undue vanity on his part—he thought that he himself was equally as competent to manage it as any three gentlemen who could be selected by the noble Marquess. He should also like to know whether the noble Marquess had consulted the Inclosure Commissioners, and whether they were prepared, in addition to their present duties and in consideration of their present salaries, to undertake the management of the whole of the property of Great Britain. Just look what it would amount to. Suppose a tenant in Caithness considered himself aggrieved, and wished to make a permanent or temporary improvement, he must come to London, or write to the Commissioners to send down a competent person to inspect his farm, to see whether he was not justified in making such an improvement. The consequence would be that the Inclosure Commissioners would have the whole of their time occupied in inspecting farms and deciding whether all the fanciful improvements projected by tenants ought or ought not to be carried out. Surely if the noble Marquess had looked into the subject with the least consideration, he could never have produced a measure of this extraordinary character. He must know that, according to the customs of the country, various matters affecting agriculture varied and differed as much as anything possibly could. The noble Marquess said, that the Bill would not affect free contracts. According to him it would not affect tenants holding land under contracts of tenancy, but it would affect tenants from year to year, or holding under ordinary leases, and yet the end of the 4th clause; contained a provision that the Act—
  "should have full operation in relation to every improvement to which the Act applied, notwithstanding any express stipulation or other matter to the contrary contained in or forming

  113
  part of a contract of tenancy taking effect after the commencement of the Act."
  That was nothing more nor less than superseding' all contracts which took place after the passing of the Act, and he defied the noble Marquess to put any other construction upon the Bill; and he said that it did interfere, and interfere most seriously, with freedom of contract. His (the Duke of Richmond's) property was let on 19 years' leases, and agreements between landlord and tenant specified the manner of culture, and various other matters connected with the tenure of the land. Under this Bill not one of these contracts between him and his tenants would be binding, but the teant, if he were so minded, might call in the Inclosure Commissioners. The landlord, under this Bill, was the last man thought of. The tenant might suddenly make up his mind that he wanted to execute on his holding what was called a "permanent improvement;" the landlord might not give his assent, but the improvement would go on, unless the Inclosure Commissioners expressly objected. Next year the tenant—who might only be a tenant from year to year—might go out, and the landlord, having paid for those buildings, might find his farm overbuilt, and have considerable difficulty in getting another tenant, because there was far too large a steading on the farm. Surely this was an intolerable interference with property. If the arbitration was not to be invalidated by the non-observance of any technical rules, it might be decided practically by hearsay evidence; and that a distress warrant for the amount of the award should be issued in seven days was a preposterous proposition. Altogether, the Bill proposed a most novel mode of dealing with the subject. If the Commissioners might, from time to time, alter the rules of procedure, they would practically have the power of drawing up a code; and if what was prescribed by them was to have the same force as if prescribed by the Act, the Commissioners would virtually be entrusted with legislative powers. The result might be that the owner of a farm of 400 acres, on returning to it after an absence of 19 years, might find it divided into 400 farms of one acre, or so changed that he could not recognize it. Their Lordships took great interest in the management of their property; would they continue to do so if it were handed over to the
  114
  tender mercies of the Inclosure Commissioners? They could not lay down any distinct line as to temporary improvements in the manner prescribed by the Bill; for manure that might remain on some land for seven years might be exhausted on other land in one or two years.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYexplained that the Bill did not lay down a rule, but fixed a maximum.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: Well, it classed among temporary improvements what might be no improvement at all; for a man might have a horse in his stable, and yet it might contribute nothing to the land, and yet this was to be considered a temporary improvement. The Bill was so extraordinary, on the whole, that he should not be justified if he failed to give it his decided opposition.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE, who had given Notice of his intention to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, his noble Friend the Lord President had left him little to say, he had discussed it so thoroughly. No measure so sweeping had ever been passed, if ever one so sweeping had been introduced. It made important changes in existing tenancies, but still more important in future tenancies. The Bill would take the management of every estate in the country out of the hands of the owner who had a permanent interest in it, and place it partly in the hands of the tenant who had a temporary interest, and partly in the hands of the Inclosure Commissioners who had no interest at all. It would establish compulsory tenant-right throughout the country, and do away with contracts—for while under the Irish Act a tenant who occupied a farm at more than £50 a-year might contract himself out of the Act, under this Bill a tenant could not do so, whether he paid £500 or £5,000. The permanent improvements which a tenant might make if he could only obtain the assent of the Commissioners were also a serious matter. A landowner might have acquired farms from different proprietors, and arrangements that might be very good in themselves for a group of farms might be very different when considered in reference to each farm singly. In such a case the landlord might desire to expend only as large an amount as would be necessary in order to put the farm buildings in a proper state up to the

  115
  end of the lease. Such an arrangement I would, however, be impossible under the Bill of his noble Friend; because every one of the tenants might, with the assent of the Inclosure Commissioners, put up buildings in spite of the landowners, and render it impossible for the landowners to carry out their own plans, or to carry out their improvements gradually. Last year a Bill on this subject was introduced in the House of Commons by Mr. Howard, the then Member for Bedford, and Mr. Read, now a Member of Her Majesty's Government. He did not mean to say that these gentlemen were not honestly desirous to do justice to the landlords, but still they, not unnaturally, looked at the matter from the tenants' point of view. Notwithstanding this fact, there was the essential difference between their Bill and that of the noble Marquess that they did not propose to allow the tenants compensation for permanent improvements, except in the shape of drainage and the improvement of water-courses, unless before making them they obtained the written consent of their landlords. Both in the Irish Land Act, and in the Bill to which he had just alluded, it was provided further that improvements for which compensation was to be given should be such as would add to the letting value of the land. There was no such proposal in the present Bill. The Bill of Mr. Howard proposed that the assent of the landlord should be necessary before a tenant should have power to claim compensation for the reclamation of waste land; but in the Bill before the House there was no definition either of reclamation or of waste land. There might be circumstances in which it would be very profitable to reclaim land and grow corn upon it when corn was at a high price, but it would not benefit the landlord if these crops were produced by over-stimulating the land to such an extent that at the expiry of the lease it would come back, into the hands of the landlord in a more or less exhausted state. There were other things, such as drainage, which would add to the value of the land; but tenants ought not to possess unlimited power to make and claim compensation for drainage works because cases might arise—close to towns, for instance, where it would be unwise to spend large sums of money in draining land for agricultural uses which might
  116
  speedily be required for building purposes. Then there were set forth in the Bill temporary improvements which tenants might make, and, with the assent of the Inclosure Commissioners, compel their landlords to pay for; but this was a question very difficult to deal with, and one upon which there ought to be the clearest possible definitions. The question of compensation for unexhausted manures, again, was one of very great difficulty, and one which had engaged the attention of very high authorities. He admitted that the present state of things was not satisfactory to tenants in all cases—it sometimes worked them great hardship. On the other hand was the great difficulty of ascertaining the value of unexhausted manures—the value of what was left in the ground—the receipts and expenditure of the tenants would not necessarily show it. In the year 1851, Mr. Caird, at the request of the proprietors of The Times, made a tour through the various counties of England in order to report upon the best course to be adopted with regard to the holding of land. Mr. Caird came to his work with a prepossession in favour of tenant right, but, as he proceeded, he became more and more impressed with the disadvantage of the custom, and in the end gave it up altogether. Mr. Caird stated that the system that the noble Marquess now advocated encouraged obsolete methods of husbandry, that it was, in many cases, injurious to the incoming tenant, by forcing him to pay large sums for so-called improvements in which he had had no voice, and thereby absorbing a large amount of his capital; that in many parts of the country not only the landlords, but the tenants disliked it, and that in parts of the country where tenant-right did prevail the husbandry was not only not better, but was not so good as it was in districts where it did not exist. That, however, was the custom which his noble Friend wished to see made compulsory throughout the country. It might, however, be said that it was a long time since that inquiry was made. Well, the subject had been recently introduced and discussed in the House of Commons, and every hon. Member, with one exception, who took part in the debate protested in the strongest terms against the imposition of any such custom by

  117
  compulsion, and also against any interference with freedom of contract between landlord and tenant. He was not insensible to the fact that agriculture in England was not all that it ought to be—there was room for improvement; but if they looted at the position of England as a producer of agricultural wealth, and compared it with the other countries of the world, no one could deny that with the single exception of Belgium no country could compare with England as to its production per acre; and Belgium was not a case in point as regarded the present question, as in that country, while there were many small holdings and many short leases, the tenant-right system—that was to say, the liability to make compensation for improvements—did not prevail. The subject under discussion was important, and might well, he thought, be remitted to the consideration of a strongly-constituted Royal Commission, which during the Recess could obtain much useful and valuable information. No case had been made out in favour of the Bill; and as his (the Earl of Airlie's) belief was that such legislation would introduce nothing but mischief and confusion between landlord and tenant, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  An Amendment moved to leave out ("now,") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Earl of Airlie.)
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day three months.
  House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, 'till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.