Sitting of 28 June 1855

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Burial of Poor Persons; West Indies Relief Loans Arrangement.
2° Excise Duties; Duchy of Lancaster Lands; Dublin Carriage Acts Amendment.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS IN GAOLS—QUESTION.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he rose to ask the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary as to the amount of remuneration for Roman Catholic clergymen for attendance at gaols?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that with respect to Brixton and Pentonville, and other prisons in the metropolis, he had already stated that the Roman Catholic clergy who attended received no remuneration; and he now found that there were no Government prisons in England in which they received remuneration. Previous to the Vote of last year there was a payment made to the priests who attended persons at Dartmoor and Portland, to cover their travelling expenses, as they had to go a considerable distance for the purpose of attendance. But since that Vote, his noble Friend at the head of the Government had directed that these payments should be discontinued, and they had been discontinued accordingly; so that now, not only was there no remuneration to Roman Catholic clergy for attending gaols, but they had to attend at their own expense.

TENANTS' IMPROVEMENTS COMPENSA- TION (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 5 (A notice of intended Improvements to be served on landlord).
SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, he would now beg to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. The principle of the right to compensation, in his opinion, ought to be that the tenant should place himself in curiâ recti, and that the Bill ought only to be resorted to by good and solvent tenants. As the clause now stood it afforded an opportunity to insolvent and litigious tenants to harass their landlords. He knew of no better test of the honesty of a tenant and of the justice of his claim for compensation than the fact of his having paid his rent. He had heard a great deal of bad landlords in Ireland, but he

279
must confess he had seen a great deal of bad tenants. Another reason which ought to induce the Committee to adopt his Amendment was, that a tenant who claimed compensation for improvements ought at least to make those improvements out of his own capital, and not out of the capital of his landlord, which he clearly would be doing if he effected those improvements, and, at the same time, run two or three years in arrears with his rent. He regarded the application of the Bill in favour of such a proceeding to be contrary to the plainest principles of equity, and would, if it were sanctioned by the Committee, be striking a blow at the security of all property.
Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 15, to add at the end of the Clause the words—
"Provided always, That no such notice shall be valid, nor shall such Tenant be entitled to any compensation under this Act for Improvements made in pursuance thereof, in any case wherein such Tenant shall owe an arrear of rent exceeding one year for his holding at the time of serving the said notice."
MR. HORSMANsaid, that, if the hon. Baronet had looked to a subsequent clause in the Bill (Clause 10), he would have seen that it rendered his own Amendment unnecessary. It was not, however, just to assume that because a tenant was in arrear of rent, he was therefore insolvent. The probability was that a great majority of solvent tenants would at the expiration of their term be more or less in arrear, though not, as the hon. Baronet had supposed, to the extent of two or three years. But even in that case the landlord had his remedy by ejectment, and the Bill provided that if the landlord was driven to evict his tenant for non-payment of rent the tenant forfeited by such eviction all right to compensation.
MR. MAGANsaid he did not think the fact of a tenant owing an arrear of rent, should preclude him from compensation for improvements.
MR. FRENCHsaid, he should oppose the Amendment, because he did not think that, as a test of the solvency of the tenant, it was worth anything.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he did not think there would be so much hardship in the proposition of the hon. Baronet as there would be in that of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland.
SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, he thought his proviso would be an excellent substitute for that of the right hon. Gentleman
280
the Secretary for Ireland, and would be an additional security to the landlord against abuses of the Act. At the same time he thought the question of the "hanging gale" should be considered, and there he was willing to modify his proviso by the addition, after the word "rent," of the words "exceeding one year."
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he should oppose the proviso, for he believed that there was no property in Ireland upon which there were not arrears of rent.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:— Ayes 60; Noes; 89: Majority 29.
Clause agreed to, as were also clauses 6, 7, 8 & 9.
Clause 10 (Recovery of compensation in case of eviction).
MR. HORSMANsaid, he proposed to insert the words, "except for non-payment of rent," after the word "otherwise" in page 8 line 43.
MR. DEASYsaid, he objected to the insertion of the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, which he thought would be productive of injustice to the tenant, and were not necessary for the security of the landlord. He should feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee on the Amendment.
MR. HORSMANsaid, that, unless the Amendment were adopted, a tenant would have the power of telling his landlord that he had made certain improvements, and that he called upon him there and then to give him compensation for those improvements. It might not be convenient at that moment for the landlord to comply with the request, and then, if the tenant refused to pay any more rent, the landlord would be compelled to evict the tenant for nonpayment of rent.
MR. MAGANsaid, he would beg to inform the Government that he was getting very unpopular in Ireland for being so enthusiastic a supporter of the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston). He warned them, however, that if this Amendment were persisted in, he should withdraw his countenance from the Bill altogether. The Amendment went to deprive tenants in arrear with their rent of all compensation for improvements. Now the very class of all others that required compensation were the class of tenants in arrears, for that very fact showed they were in needy circumstances.
MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he thought the Amendment would press very hard upon farming classes in Ireland, should any unforeseen circumstances bring about a fall in the value of agricultural produce.
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he thought if the Bill was to be brought back to its original shape in one point, by parity of reasoning it ought to be similarly remodelled in every other respect.
MR. COGANsaid, he should oppose the Amendment on the ground that if it were adopted it would make the Bill illusory, and of little practical effect. He hoped, therefore, the Government would reconsider the matter.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, these Amendments would render the measure totally unworthy the attention of Irish Members, because they would have the effect rather of advancing the landlords' interest than giving the tenant some prospect that he would obtain compensation for his improvements.
MR. LLOYD DAVISsaid, he fully concurred in the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, and would support the Amendment upon the simple ground of justice to all parties. He had frequently heard a desire expressed by the hon. Members from Ireland that the laws of England should be assimilated to that country. The Amendment proposed carried out that principle, for there was not a lease granted in England that did not contain a covenant by which the tenant lost the benefit of his improvements if he failed in paying his rent.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he should certainly vote against the Amendment, as being unjust and oppressive upon the tenant. In Ireland it was not an uncommon practice to allow tenants to run in arrear of rent while they were making improvements upon their farms, and when the landlord found that they had expended all their capital in that way he came down upon them for his rent, in order to reap the advantage of the improvements without paying anything for them.
MR. SERJEANT O'BRIENsaid, that a distinction ought to be drawn between the tenant who wilfully and designedly neglected to pay his rent and the tenant who was prevented from doing so from some unavoidable cause, over which he had no control whatever. Now, the Amendment recognised no such distinction, while as for the evil which it proposed to re-
282
medy, it was already sufficiently guarded against by the existing law. If an Amendment of that nature were allowed to pass as an act of justice, the Committee ought to insert another to prevent the unjust landlord from taking advantage of his honest but necessitous tenant.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, it must be admitted by all parties that the question was attended with great difficulties. Everything he had heard said on the subject had, however, confirmed him in the opinion that he ought to vote against the proposed Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. When discussing that question it was useless to speak of the analogy of England. If they were to act upon the anology of England they ought not to have such a Bill as that before them. The principle, however, upon which they should proceed was that of compensation for improvements, which was admitted to be its object. They should not, therefore, be endeavouring to cut down as much as possible its advantages to the tenant, but rather to extend them as far as they were consistent with the just rights of the landlord. For the one case in which the Amendment would shield the landlord from the unjust claims of a dishonest tenant, he believed there would be twenty cases in which it would inflict the most crying grievance upon the honest tenant. He recollected hearing a distinguished Judge say that Solomon was a wise man and Samson was a strong man; but neither Solomon nor Samson could pay their rent if they had not the money. Now there was much wisdom in the observation—for an honest tenant with all his wisdom and strength, by unforeseen circumstances might be unable to pay his rent. Was it just then, under the circumstances, to say to him that he should not receive any compensation for his improvements on the land, although the value of such improvements might be considerably more than the rent that he owed? Was it at all likely that a tenant who had built houses, made roads, or erected fences, would expose himself to ruin by wilfully subjecting himself to eviction for non-payment of rent?
MR. FORTESCUEsaid, the Amendment was not consistent with the main principle of the Bill, viz., compensation to the tenant. Supposing a tenant fell into arrear with his rent, he was surely entitled to have credit for his improvements.
MR. G. BUTTsaid the Bill was not intended merely for the tenant; it dealt also with the rights and duties of the landlord. Was it not only fair then that when a tenant neglected to keep his contract he should be excluded from reaping the benefit of this measure? For his part, he thought the Amendment was founded upon equity and justice, and if it were rejected the Bill might be well denounced as a species of one-sided legislation.
MR. BOWYERsaid, that the 13th clause of the Bill appeared to him to be an answer to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, for it provided that a landlord would be entitled to set off the arrears of rent against any claim of the tenant for compensation. The facts of Ireland were altogether different from those of England. Although an Irish representative he was an English landlord, and as such he could have no objection to the extension of the principle of the Bill to England, for it would, he believed, be practically inoperative in that country; because, as he said before, the facts were totally different in England and Ireland. He had had occasion two years ago to evict a tenant, but as it was proved to him that that tenant's father had erected certain buildings upon the land, he felt himself bound, as an honest man, to pay the tenant 300 l., being the value of such buildings.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he thought he was bound to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. The principle involved in it was not new, for it underwent considerable discussion by the Select Committee in 1853. The tenant's right to compensation should arise whenever he was unjustly dispossessed by the landlord; but, on the other hand, if the tenant did not perform his part of the contract, it would be a strong thing to say that he created a title to compensation by his own default. According to his (Mr. Napier's) conviction of what was right and proper, then, he should support the Amendment.
MR. T. KENNEDYsaid, he would ask hon. Members the following question, if A owed B 5l. rent, and had expended 50 l. in improvements, was A, owing only 5l. to lose his title to 50 l. because B had neglected to place his estate in a condition fit for cultivation? If the clause were passed he would resist the progress of the Bill in every way he could, unless good reasons were shown to the contrary. Instead of being an Act to give compensation to ten-
284
ants, it would be an Act to enable landlords to take advantage of their own wrong. He would desire to hear the law officers of Ireland express their opinions on the subject. He wished they would let the right hon. Gentleman know how this clause was likely to be received in Ireland.
MR. GEORGEsaid, if A had property worth 50 l. owing his landlord 5l., he had only to pay 5l. and he would have 45 l. for his own benefit. He earnestly entreated Her Majesty's Government to abide by this fair and righteous Amendment of the clause. If the tenant were to have the benefit of this clause, it ought to be on the condition that he had performed his contract with his landlord—namely, by the payment of his rent. If the tenant were empowered to set off his claim for compensation against his landlord's claim for rent it would actually amount to confiscation; for when the landlord demanded 100 l. for rent, the tenant would immediately say—"I have a claim upon you for 400 l. for improvements;" and thus the landlord would be deprived of his right to get possession of his estate. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would persevere with his Amendment.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to address a few words to the Committee on the Amendment now under consideration, although he confessed he saw but little use for the representatives of the popular constituencies in Ireland to give expression to their opinions, seeing how little was the impression those opinions made on the minds of those occupying the Ministerial benches. He was anxious, however, to ascertain what course of policy the Irish Members meant to pursue towards the Government, seeing that they really were determined to carry through this emasculated Bill, which had been rendered utterly worthless, and had better be thrown into the waste-paper basket. It was his belief that the responsibility of this ruinous Amendment rested not with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, who knew nothing whatever of that country, and who had been pitchforked into his present position for the mere convenience of his party, but that the whole responsibility of this ruinous exception, now insisted upon, rested on the Solicitor General and the Attorney General for Ireland. Those hon. and learned Gentlemen were bound to rise up and say whether they were satisfied with the Bill as it was proposed to be amended, and whether they

285
felt themselves justified in presenting such a measure to their country. Would the House listen while he read a solemn pledge given by the Attorney General for Ireland to his countrymen on the subject? and if, after having read these words, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should rise and say that the provisions of the Bill absolved him from any further relation to that pledge, then he (Mr. Maguire) would say no more upon that question. In a pamphlet published by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, the opinions of several eminent men were given, and among others was a declaration made by the present Attorney General for Ireland. [Mr. Serjeant SHEE.—It was the Solicitor General.] That made it all the stronger. The two hon. and learned Gentlemen might, however, make their choice as to who should be deemed the author of the passage he was now about to quote. It ran thus:—
"I feel it to be my solemn duty to declare in the presence of this vast and influential assembly, that I shall never be found the supporter of any Government who will not consent to make it a Cabinet question, and give the fullest Ministerial aid and influence to a measure embodying provisions for the real and tangible relief of the outraged and injured land tenantry of this country—a real and permanent relief in its fullest meaning, acceptance, and extent."
Whether those words were used by the present Solicitor General or the late Solicitor General for Ireland was of no great importance; for if it were the present Solicitor General who had made the statement, he knew that the Attorney General had made a much stronger statement. Had he (Mr. Maguire) not a right, then, as an Irish Member, to call upon those hon. and learned Gentlemen to get up and redeem their pledge, or, at least, to state why they wished to back out of it in defiance of the whole country? With regard to the proposed Amendment it was admited that the tenant might claim compensation for improvements to the amount of four years' rental. Now, suppose the rent were 100 l. and the landlord evicted the tenant for non-payment of that sum, and the tenant had a claim to the amount of four years' rent for improvements, was the tenant to be robbed, by the mere act of eviction, of 300 l.? All that he required was, that strict justice should be done, and the House of Commons was bound to consider the question in that light alone, and without reference to the other House of Parliament. He called upon the right
286
hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney general for Ireland to tell the Committee the reasons which induced him to advise the Government to support an Amendment which would make the Bill itself a dead letter.
MR. KEOGHsaid, he was not disposed to shrink from any responsibility that might attach to him in reference to the Amendment now under the consideration of the Committee. The proposition of his right hon. Friend was to restore the Bill to the position in which it was when on a former occasion it left that House and went up to the other House of Parliament. In its then shape the exception was not confined to evictions for non-payment of rent, but went further, and said except for nonpayment of rent or breach of the conditions of covenant. Now those words were much more extensive than the proposition of his right hon. Friend, and infinitely more prejudicial to the tenant. But did the hon. Gentleman or any other Gentleman divide the House or strike out these words. [An hon. MEMBER: They did.] Certainly not. It was quite true that the hon. Member for Longford proposed that the word "wilful" should be inserted, not before the words "non-payment of rent," but before the word "default." The other Bill was rejected by the other House of Parliament, and did any man believe that the other House of Parliament would agree to leave out all exception whatever when they had already rejected a Bill with a more extended exception? He thought the Government were justified in seeking as they did loyally to carry the Bill this Session through the other House of Parliament, by proposing an exception not going so far as that which was contained in the former Bill, but going sufficiently far to justify a sincere hope on their part that the measure would pass the Legislature.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to explain that, although he had not divided the Committee on the provision referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he had nevertheless argued against it, and had only yielded from a desire to get a Bill passed which, though imperfect, might still be productive of benefit.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, he was of opinion that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had made a slight mistake in his statement of what had occurred on a former occasion. When the Bill came before them on a former occasion, it contained the words "without

287
the act or default of the tenant," and believing that by the introduction of those words it was not the intention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) to let that part of the Bill have a practical effect—that was to say, that he meant to give compensation to tenants not in arrear of rent, knowing well that there was not one tenant in a hundred in Ireland who was not in arrear with his rent, and that therefore that part of the Bill threw dust in the eyes of the people, and would be of no practical effect whatever—he (Mr. Serjeant Shee) and his hon. Friends near him did their best to get that defect amended by moving the insertion of the word "wilful." He would state the reasons why in the Bill which he introduced he had omitted those words. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) had spoken of the propriety of introducing those words, as being consistent with the civil law, but he found from the civil law that a tenant must owe two years' rent, or if he had effected improvements, three years' rent before he could be evicted. Then it was suggested that if those words were not introduced the tenant would improve with the landlord's capital; but that could not be, because tenants did not improve when in arrear of rent. Another reason assigned was that by the law of Ireland a tenant could always avoid the consequences of an ejectment, or even supersede a judgment, by redeeming. But that did not apply, except to tenants under lease. Thus, all the reasons adduced for introducing the words had failed. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the tenant did not improve with his landlord's capital, but with his own; therefore, this reason did not apply. He contended that the clause would be good neither for the landlord, the tenant, nor the community at large. A tenant would know perfectly well that if he fell into difficulties, the improvements would be of no value to him, because he was to be evicted at the very moment when he might reap the profit of them. Would it be wise or prudent, therefore, for him to attempt any improvement? Would it not be better for him, if he got or saved 600 l., to place it in a bank or invest it otherwise, instead of spending it on improvements? No tenant would do so when he was liable to be evicted by his landlord for arrears of rent without compensation. The object of the Bill, which was to promote improvements, would thus be entirely defeated. Tenants, as-
288
suredly would not improve if the Amendment were inserted in the clause. The Bills would be worth nothing at all if they did not aim at something beyond the benefit of the individual landlord and tenant, and tend to promote the welfare of the whole agricultural class—proprietors, tenants, and labourers. The result would be that the same wretched system of cultivation would be continued, and the same miserable hovels for the population to inhabit be maintained, and they would be obliged to resort to potato cultivation, in order to obtain the payment of rent at all. Ireland would then be threatened with a recurrence of the calamities which that system had brought upon her, and they would be obliged again to approach the question under much less favourable circumstances. At present the high prices diffused a feeling of general contentment and satisfaction, but there was no guarantee that this state of things would continue. He thought it greatly to be regretted that, when there existed in all quarters a disposition favourable to the settlement of the question, Government should have arrived at such a decision in reference to the matter before them. His decided conviction was that it would be better not to pass any measure at all than to pass the Bill in a mutilated and mangled shape.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 49: Majority 63.
MR. SERJEANT O'BRIENsaid, he would now move to insert in the same clause, after the words "non-payment of rent," the words "reserved by any subsisting lease."
MR. KEOGHsaid, he did not see how the Committee could accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman after the decision at which it had arrived. It would be rather detrimental to the tenant than otherwise, and might lead to further reservations.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he should support the Amendment, which would prevent the eviction of tenants by their landlords without compensation.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:— Ayes 52; Noes 124: Majority 72.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he would beg to insert after the same words the following, "where the tenant has a power of alienation."
MR. HORSMANsaid, he could not agree to the Amendment, for which he could see no good ground, and the adoption of which might lead to other specific exemptions.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:— Ayes 44; Noes 142: Majority 98.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, the clause, as it now stood, declared the tenant entitled to compensation for his improvements if evicted, unless the eviction was for nonpayment of rent. He would therefore now move an Amendment to insert, after "nonpayment of rent," the words "being not less than two years' rent of such holding." His object was to prevent the tenant from losing his compensation for a default of rent of merely a year or a year and a half.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he could not agree to the insertion of these words. The Committee having discussed at considerable length, and decided the principle on which compensation was to be given, he considered it useless to be proposing exceptions of the kind proposed by the Amendment, and fighting the question over again on small points.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he should support the Amendment, which he considered essential to place the Irish tenantry on as good a footing as their English brethren. An Irish tenant could now be evicted, where there was not a written contract or lease, for a single year's arrear of rent; whereas, in England a rule of law much more favourable to the tenant prevailed.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 158: Majority 109.
MR. GEORGEsaid, he would beg to move the insertion after the words "except for non-payment of rent," the words, "or other breach of covenant, or on the surrender of the tenant." This Amendment was to carry out the principle already repeatedly affirmed, that the tenant was only to be entitled to compensation on eviction by the landlord or effluxion of the tenancy by time, provided he fulfilled the obligations of the tenancy. Eviction for nonpayment of rent was a penalty for breach of a condition, the tenant having forfeited his lease. There could be no difference between eviction for non-payment of rent and eviction for breach of any other covenant; for instance, a covenant to lay out
290
money, or a covenant against alienation or sub-letting. The landlord was to pay for improvements in the event of his terminating the tenancy by his own voluntary act; but it would be unjust to make him pay when he did not desire to terminate the tenancy, but it was terminated by the act or default of the tenant. Therefore the Amendment included the case of surrender by the tenant.
MR. KEOGHsaid, he did not see the necessity for the Amendment. There was a distinction between eviction for non-payment of rent and for any other cause. Upon a mere breach of covenant a landlord might take advantage of it to repossess himself of the land, and the act might be strict and technical.
MR. GEORGEsaid, in the 56th clause the words he proposed were introduced.
MR. GROGANsaid, he thought this a decisive answer to the observations of the Attorney General for Ireland. The tenant who surrendered his tenancy surely ought not to have compensation.
MR. KEOGHsaid, the clause only applied to cases of eviction.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he would admit that cases of surrender were included, but cases of breach of covenant were not so. A breach of covenant in over-cropping or not duly cultivating might be most injurious to the landlord. He had heard of fourteen crops being taken out of the land, and had known of five or six crops; and the difficulties of getting out a tenant in Ireland were such, that he might be able to ruin the land before he could be got rid of.
MR. MALINSsaid, the Government ought to be consistent. They had conceded that if the tenant were evicted for a pecuniary demand, he should not have compensation; and the principle of the Amendment was, that a breach of covenant might be a pecuniary demand, as by way of penalty or increased rent for wrongful cultivation.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, his hon. and learned Friend forgot the distinction, that a tenant could not be evicted for mere breach of covenant without special stipulation to that effect. And this clause only applied to cases of eviction. It would have been better to have retained the words of the original Bill—"breaches of condition." The question of mere breach of covenant was quite different. And as to surrender, it could not be at the option of the tenant, but must be accepted by the landlord.
MR. GEORGEsaid, he would agree to those suggestions. He would omit the words "as to surrender," and alter the rest of the Amendment by using the words "breach of condition."
MR. CAIRNSsaid, he should then vote for the Amendment.
MR. MALINSsaid, he had only intended breaches of covenants, or where there was a condition for re-entry.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, it was provided that in the case of any breach of covenants including non-payment of rent, the landlord was entitled to make such a demand as he might fairly ask as a set-off against the compensation required by the tenant; but when they came to deal with an eviction for breach of condition—a sublet for example—in which the landlord received no damnification, the case was materially altered. The non-payment of rent was essentially a money question, and the tenant could regain possession by paying the rent within six months. There were many breaches of conditions which would occasion no loss to the landlord. It would be hard to make them cases, and it would be extremely difficult to legislate for them. He thought that while on the one hand it would not be right to force a landlord unduly to buy the improvements that were made, so, on the other, it would be hard that, for a breach of condition without damnification to the landlord, the tenant should be forced out of his holding. He must, therefore, oppose the Amendment.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he held it to be right in principle that, when a tenant was dispossessed without any default on his part, he was entitled to compensation for his improvements, but that, when he was in fault, he ought not to be made a profiler by his own wrong. On this principle he should support the Amendment.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he did not see why the same consequences should not follow any breach of condition that were made to follow non-payment of rent.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 117: Majority 6.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, that as the clause now stood, an evicted tenant acquired a right of action against the landlord at any time within six years. In order to limit the time, he begged to propose as an Amendment in page 9, line 14, after the
292
words "tenant shall," the words "not later than one month after the determination of his possession."
MR. HORSMANsaid, he would suggest that the period within which evicted tenants might bring actions should be extended to three months.
Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out "one," and insert "three."
Question put, "That 'one' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 181: Majority 129.
MR. BLANDsaid, he would now move to insert at the end of the clause, the words of which he had given notice.
Amendment proposed, to add at the end of the Clause the words—
"Provided that in case any tenant shall be evicted for non-payment of rent, and shall be sued for any rent in respect of the lands from which he has been so evicted, he shall be at liberty to set off against such claim for rent the amount of the compensation to which he would have been entitled under this Act had his tenancy determined by effluxion of time."
MR. HORSMANsaid, he thought that the Amendment of his hon. Friend was a fair one, and was not inconsistent with the principle of the Bill.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, that on the contrary, he looked upon the proviso as in direct violation of the principle of the Bill.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he was of opinion that the proviso was in perfect accordance, not only with the principle of the Bill, but with principles of justice. When a tenant was evicted for non-payment of rent, he did think the tenant was entitled to set off the compensation due to him against the rent, just as in the other case, the landlord was entitled to set off the arrears of rent against the compensation.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 90: Majority 37.
Clause as amended agreed to.
House resumed; Committee report progress.
MR. GROGANasked, when the consideration of the Bill would be resumed?
MR. HORSMANsaid, this day, after the other business.
LORD PALMERSTONsaid, it would not be taken after half-past ten o'clock.
The House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Youthful Offenders (No. 2); Union Charges Act Continuance; Court of Exchequer (Ireland); Burial-Grounds (Scotland); School Sites Alienation; Dwellings for Labouring Classes.
Reported—National Gallery, &c. (Dublin).
3a Militia (No. 2).

THE SLAVE TRADE.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that he had received a communication from the Brazilian Ambassador to this country in reference to the remarks he had made in that House the other night with respect to slavery and the slave trade. That communication corroborated every word that he (Lord Brougham) had said, and stated in addition certain important facts connected with the cessation of the slave trade in that country during the last four years. The number of slaves imported into Brazil amounted in the first of those four years to 50,000, in the next year to 30,000, in the third year to 3,000; and in the fourth year the traffic had entirely ceased. And not only that, but of the last mentioned 3,000 slaves imported 1,500 were taken by the police authorities of Brazil, and set at liberty.

MARRIED SOLDIERS—INCREASE OF PAY OF THE ARMY IN THE FIELD.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he wished to call the attention of his noble Friend the Secretary for War to a subject
272
of which he had given him notice. He had observed in the newspapers advertisements calling on architects to send in plans for new barracks which were about to be erected in different parts of the country; and he wished to call the attention of his noble Friend to a matter of great importance, and to inquire whether in the erection of new barracks due care would be taken to have separate accommodation for married soldiers, their wives and children? Nothing could be more degrading from decency and self-respect than that married men and their wives should be sleeping in the same galleries where there were forty or fifty unmarried soldiers. He had been always taught to believe that decency and propriety were the most important outworks of chastity, and it was impossible to expect that women who witnessed such scenes as must occur in a barrack room could be otherwise than demoralised. He wished to call attention to a plan with regard to this matter which had been successfully tried. In 1852, Colonel Alexander, a gallant and distinguished officer, of the Madras army, was examined before the Committee of their Lordships' House which sat on Indian affairs, and he stated that in the Madras army the practice of married men and their wives living in the same building with the rest of the men had been abandoned, and that both the regiments and the women belonging to them had been greatly improved by the adoption of that course. He conceived it was hardly necessary for him to call the attention of his noble Friend to this subject. Though much had been done to improve the condition of the soldier by means of establishing schools and reading rooms, the cultivation of athletic exercises, and the distribution in our barracks of medals and gratuities for good conduct, yet much remained to be done. He did not see why a soldier in Her Majesty's service should not be as well off as a pauper in a workhouse, who had a dormitory in which he neither ate nor cooked his meals, but had a day-room; whereas the soldier too often, in barracks in this country, was compelled to cook and eat in the room in which he slept; and there was no comfort for him in his barrack-room. He believed the experiment of day-rooms had been found most beneficial in the police barracks in London. Instead of the soldier having a room where he might go, with a fire, by which he might read the papers or periodicals, and prepare his hot cocoa or

273
coffee, you now drove the young soldier from his cheerless barrack-room, where so little fuel was allowed, to the beershop or the low public-house, where he began those habits of drunkenness which were the source of all the crimes the soldier committed. We talked of our gratitude to the brave men who were fighting in the Crimea, but he wanted gratitude expressed more in deeds than in words. In the first place take care of those whom the soldier loved, and then endeavour to elevate his character by giving him respectable habits; and if that was done the country would look favourably on the soldier, and respect him as much for his conduct in quarters as they did for his heroic gallantry in the field. He wished to ask his noble Friend if any plan such as he had imperfectly indicated was to be carried out in the erection of new barracks? He trusted also that he might be allowed to ask if the recruiting for Her Majesty's forces was going on in a satisfactory manner?—for though he for one never had, or should have a doubt of the success of the British army in any undertaking in which they were engaged, yet he should be glad to be informed whether the Goverment had taken seriously into their consideration the absolute necessity at the present moment of putting into the ranks of the army, not merely children of seventeen or eighteen years old, but young men with more formed constitutions, who, though they never could be braver than those who were now in the Crimean army, would have more stamina to enable them to undergo the privations, fatigues and hardships which were inseparable from war.
LORD PANMURE: My Lords, in answering my noble Friend's questions, I will in the first place state my entire conviction that they are put in no spirit of hostility to the Government, because the conduct of the noble Duke, in reference to military matters in this House, fully proves that he is the last person to be actuated by any such motives. With regard to my noble Friend's first question, it must be satisfactory to all concerned in the welfare of the British army to feel that the tendency, not simply of public opinion, but of the public acts of the House of Commons, in voting the supplies for the army, has of late years been to improve the condition of the soldier. Every person who for many years past has occupied the situation of Secretary at War has endeavoured to raise
274
the character of the military profession in this country with a view of inducing respectable persons to permit their children to embark in it. But although much has been done in that direction—for instance, by establishing libraries and promoting education—although the spiritual instruction of the soldier has been attended to, and although the temptation in the shape of spirits in the canteens has been removed—still I admit that much remains to be done for the comfort of the soldier. Nobody can have heard the description just given by the noble Duke of the condition of women in barracks, even when admitted there with the sanction of a commanding officer, without feeling how degrading a system must be which exposes them to witness every day the scenes weich occur in a barrack room. The subject of the future construction of barracks is at present under the consideration of a Committee; that Committee has not yet reported, nor can I say whether it has especiallly directed its attention to this point; but if it has not, it will be the duty of those who are charged with the erection of barracks to amend the Report in that particular. I quite agree with the noble Duke, that without dayrooms barracks cannot be made comfortable for the soldier, and that it is neither wholesome nor becoming that the equipments should be kept and all cooking done in the sleeping-rooms. Such a state of things ought certainly to be put an end to. It is absolutely necessary, too, that separate accommodation should be provided for women if women are to be admitted into barracks; but I am one of those who think that the presence of women might be dispensed with altogether in barracks. I do not see why soldiers in the army should not be able to do for themselves many of those things which women are now employed to do. It would be no great hardship if young men entering the army were to be informed that, at all events until the expiration of their first period of enlistment—until the end of ten years in the infantry, and of twelve years in the cavalry—they would not on any pretence be permitted to marry. If that were the rule, I believe that with the present arrangement of the army there would never be any married privates at all; the only married people in a regiment would be noncommissioned officers, and there would be no difficulty in providing separate accommodation for them. I see no reason why

275
a certain class of non-commissioned officers, might not very properly be married, and attached to the regiment as married men. The noble Duke's second question—with regard to the progress which recruiting for the army is at present making—is one in which every one of your Lordships, as well as the whole country, must be deeply interested. It is impossible to deny that the establishment of the army is far below that which has been voted by the House of Commons. I do not attribute this to any dislike to the service, because a great number of men have entered the army, and we are at the present moment recruiting very nearly at the rate of 1,000 per week; but still there never has been a sufficient number enlisted to bring up the number to that which was voted by Parliament, and, although we are gaining ground, yet we are on the other hand, losing by the consumption at the seat of war. It occurred to Her Majesty's Government that the difficulty might be got rid of by an increase of the bounty; but on consultation with the noble Lord at the head of the army, and with those who have had considerable experience in this matter, we have been dissuaded from taking that step. We propose, therefore, to try another mode, which though entirely novel in the British army, is one from which we anticipate considerable success. The plan is this, that to all soldiers who shall be engaged in the field of action before the enemy—and this will of course apply at once to the army in the Crimea—double pay shall be given. I propose that a shilling a day shall be added to the pay of all men who are now before the enemy; and this addition will take place from the day when they landed in the Crimea. I do not propose that this addition shall go immediately into the pockets of the soldier. I am one of those who think that if the expenses which are put upon soldiers by some commanding officers and others who take arbitrary views on these points were more carefully watched, the pay of a soldier would be amply sufficient for all his necessities in time of war. I propose, therefore, that this additional pay shall be invested in the savings bank in the country. If the soldier survives and returns to this country, it will accumulate into a fund which he will receive on his discharge; if he is pensioned, he will have it in addition to his pension; and, if he unfortunately falls, it will be given to his representatives. Every soldier, there-
276
fore, who dies fighting the battles of his country will leave a fund behind him for those who are dear to him; and if he survives he will have an accumulating fund for himself at the end of the war, which will not interfere with or be in lieu of any pension to which he may be entitled. This plan I intend to make public in a few days by means of a proclamation, and I trust that by adopting this plan, instead of increasing the bounty, I shall not only be taking the most adequate means of rewarding those who are already fighting the battles of their country abroad, but that I shall be enabled more economically to tempt the youth of this country to prefer the army as a profession, and to enter into it at a time when I have no hesitation in saying their services are most urgently required.

ASSIZES AND SESSIONS.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
LORD CAMPBELLafter referring to the various important alterations of the law involved in the measure, suggested that as a number of Bills had already been postponed in the House of Commons on account of the advanced state of the Session, the present Bill, which would require most deliberate consideration in the House of Commons, should also be deferred to another Session,
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLORcould see no reason why the Bill should be postponed. It had been read a second time, and generally speaking, received the approbation of their Lordships. Even his noble and learned Friend approved the object of the measure, and the only reason he suggested for its postponement was an apprehension that it might be opposed in the other House of Parliament. He did not see why the Bill should not pass both Houses; but, at all events, he hoped their Lordships would do their duty and carry it through its various stages without delay. It would rest with the House of Commons to find time to consider it or to deal with it otherwise.
LORD BROUGHAMhoped, when his noble and learned Friend argued so much in favour of not overloading the other House of Parliament with business when the solemn season of the 12th of August drew nigh, that the other House would

277
take the same considerate course with regard to their Lordships, and not send up Bills within the last ten, or even three or four days of the close of the Session, which they were called on either to reject altogether or swallow whole, seeing it was physically impossible to apply to them the slightest consideration. He hoped their Lordships would now go into Committee on the Bill.
After a few words from the Duke of RICHMOND and Lord DENMAN,
Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly; an Amendment moved and negatived; other Amendments made: the Report thereof to be received on Monday next.

THE MILITIA (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, that the Bill he now read 3a
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that he hoped the noble Lord the Secretary at War would introduce some Amendments into the second clause. One of the greatest inconveniences sustained in the various towns and parishes throughout the country, was the inequality that existed in the valuation of property, and the assessment of the rates. The noble Lord, seeing that disputes as to the proportion which each parish in a county should contribute to the expenses of the militia would very probably arise, proposed that the Government should appoint an umpire to settle the proportions which each parish should contribute. He thought, however, that it would be much better to take the income-tax valuation as the basis of contribution.
LORD PANMUREobjected to the proposal, on the ground that to introduce it into the Bill at this stage would be a violation of the privileges of the House of Commons.
LORD BERNERScomplained of the complicated and, at the same time, loose manner in which several of the clauses were framed. He thought it was highly desirable that some provisions should be introduced into the Bill in order to secure a more equal and just system of assessment and rating than would be obtained by the Bill as it stood.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 3a accordingly.
An Amendment moved and negatived; an Amendment made.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned till To-morrow.