Sitting of 30 April 1856

MINUTE.
NEW WRIT.—For Longford, v. Richard Maxwell Fox, esq. deceased.

ASCENSION DAY—ADJOURNMENT.
MR. HAYTERsaid, he would move that the House at its rising do adjourn till to-morrow at Two o'clock.
MR. THORNELYsaid, he wished to know if they were to begin business at Two o'clock'?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must inform the hon. Member that the House at its rising always adjourned till half-past Ten o'clock the following forenoon. Committees were entitled to sit after that hour, but to-morrow being Ascension-day, it was not thought desirable that they should meet before Two o'clock, and hence the Motion for adjourning the House till that hour.
MR. THORNELYsaid, he understood, then, that though Committees might sit at Two o'clock, the House itself would not meet till Four.
MR. SPEAKER: Precisely so; but it is competent to the House now to resolve that no Committee should sit to-morrow, being Ascension Day.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered—That no Committees shall have leave to sit To-morrow, being Ascension Day, until Two o'clock.

DWELLINGS FOR LABOURING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he would now move that the House should go into Committee upon this Bill.
Motion made, and question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he could not allow that opportunity to pass without saying that he was not only opposed to the principle of the Bill, but also the details, The latter might be amended in Committee, but still the Bill was bad in principle. He would not, however, oppose their going into Committee on the Bill.
MR. DE VEREsaid, he also entertained very serious objections to both the principle and the details of the Bill. The Amendments which were on the paper, if introduced, would render the Bill less noxious; and after the division which took place on the second reading, he thought they ought to go into Committee and amend it there as best they could.
MR. BRADYsaid, the principle of the Bill had not yet been fully discussed, and it certainly ought to be before the House determined to go into Committee. The right hon. Baronet who introduced the Bill (Sir W. Somerville) was, no doubt, actuated by the most kindly feelings towards the labouring classes of Ireland; but he would not on that account assent to a measure which would place the poor of his country in the power of the magistrates and at the mercy of the landlords. The Bill purported by its preamble to be a Bill to improve the condition of the labouring classes; but, believing that its effect would be the very reverse of improvement, he felt bound to offer every opposition in his power to the further progress of the measure.
MR. KENNEDYsaid, he should move that the House go into Committee that day six months. He considered the Bill as an attempt to introduce into Ireland a different law from that which existed in England or Scotland. He did not believe it would be proposed anywhere except in Ireland to empower a landlord to eject his tenants occupying less than half an acre of land at any period of the year, even when their crops were in the ground, upon a month or even a week's notice. There were no peculiar circumstances in Ireland to justify the enactment of so harsh a law, and be hoped the House would not listen to the plausible excuse that the Bill would enable landlords to provide for the labouring classes house accommodation not inferior to that enjoyed by the humblest cottager in England.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee" instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, when he brought this Bill in last Session, he then stated, at considerable length, the principle and the reasons on which it was founded; and, upon a Motion similar to this, the House then decided by a large majority upon going into Committee. He therefore did not think it necessary to make a lengthened statement upon the present occasion. It was not correct to state that the Bill would enable a landlord to go through the country and turn out the poor people from their holdings. The Bill had in view the improvement of the dwellings of the poor. Those habitations, he was ashamed to say, were such as to be a disgrace to a civilised country, and those hon. Members would pardon him if he said he did not understand their opposition. The Bill referred only to a certain class of houses with a view of providing for common decency and comfort—and until those comforts were attended to and provided for, the landlord would have no power given him under the Bill. He might exaggerate when he said it, but he feared that the class of houses to be provided under this Bill was not anywhere to be found in Ireland. His reason for bringing in the Bill was, that the state of the law was such, and the resistance to the recovery of rent or tenement such, that nobody, if he could help it, would have anything to do with these small houses, and the consequence was, that the landlord, when he learned the state of the law, which he soon did, knocked down the tenements, which were nothing but a trouble to him. On a former occasion, when the Bill was before the House, he had read extracts from the books of travellers, some of them foreigners, who had visited Ireland, and he was ashamed to say they contrasted the dwellings of the poor there unfavourably with the wigwams of the Indians. It was an evil to which he had long been alive, and when in office he introduced a clause into a Bill applicable to Dublin, to facilitate the recovery of small tenements. The results of that clause,

1789
according to the testimony of Mr. Turner, had been most excellent, and still continued to be so. The number of hovels in Dublin had decreased, as he had expected, and the number of ejectments had also diminished; and, what was much to be wished, Mr. Turner said that the horribly brutal conduct of landlords in dealing with their tenants, their riotous treatment of them, seizing and pawning their furniture, taking out the windows, stopping the chimney and smoking them out—all that had been stopped in that district. It was objected, however, that that clause might apply to towns and villages, but that it was entirely unsuited to the rural districts. In those districts that class of dwelling was becoming scarcer every day, and but for the clause which he introduced, he believed that by this time the poor would have been without a roof to cover them. It was with an humble endeavour to remedy the existing dreadful state of things that he had brought forward this measure. It must be remembered that these poor people were hustled and huddled together in hovels which were utterly unfit for human beings to dwell in, and that for the wretched places which they inhabited they paid a rent which was absolutely exorbitant. He had thought long and anxiously over this subject, and he conscientiously believed that the Bill which he had introduced would prove efficacious in remedying the notorious evils which now existed. He had been called on by many parties to persevere with his Bill, as the hovels which were still left to the poor were a disgrace to a civilised country, and but for the operation of his previous enactment the outskirts of large towns would, at this moment, have been in ruins. As it was, the poor were now being driven into the towns, because there were no cottages for them; and, after the labour of the day, they were compelled to walk home some three or four miles to get to the neighbouring town. He could safely say that be had done everything which he could do in favour of the poor man, and he could not do more consistently with the main principle of the Bill.
VISCOUNT BERNARDsaid, he trusted that the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment would permit the Bill to go into Committee. It was admitted that the habitations of the poor in Ireland were bad; and the object of the Bill was to improve them. The mode by which the Bill proposed to do that was by encouraging persons who had the means to build houses,
1790
securing to them a fair and reasonable return for the capital invested. It was not in the country districts alone that the habitations of the poor were in the wretched condition that had been stated; but the same thing prevailed in the towns to an equal, and even greater, extent. At a recent inquest which was held in the city of Cork, the county surveyor stated that one-tenth of the whole of the houses in that city were unfit for habitation, and ought to be pulled down. Another witness on the same occasion stated that one-third of the houses in that city were in a dangerous state. He might, from his own experience, having had the command of a militia regiment at Ballincollig, in the county of Cork, also state, that the houses in which the married men of the regiment were obliged to sleep were of the most miserable character, and that he had been informed that nobody would come forward to build a better class of habitations unless some greater inducement was held out to do so than existed under the present state of things. Now that the blessings of peace were restored he trusted that Gentlemen would turn their attention to practical legislation of this description, for he was certain that nothing would more tend to raise the Irish people in the social scale than providing for them neat and wholesome dwellings, and encouraging in them cleanly habits. He begged to express his acknowledgments to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Canterbury for having introduced the Bill.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he begged to tell hon. Members who spoke of exceptional legislation, that a similar measure to this was already in operation in England, with this difference, that, whereas the English law extended to houses under £20, in Ireland the maximum was, under this Bill, to be £9 10 s.; and, further, that in England there was no restriction as regarded the quality of the tenement. He believed that the measure was solely calculated for the benefit of the peasantry of Ireland, and he regretted, therefore, the opposition which had been offered to it. If he thought that it was intended to give the landlords a more arbitrary power over the tenantry than they now possessed, he should not support the measure for an instant; but his right hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Somerville) was, fortunately, the last man in that House who could be suspected of such an intention.
MR. J. O'CONNELLsaid, he would not join in the criticisms—many of them unjust—which had been passed upon the Irish landlords; but he could not agree that it was desirable to give to landlords, who had already possibly tyrannised over their tenantry, the power of ejecting them and pulling down their cottages in order to do what?—to build magnificent mansions with two rooms, of which any English landlord would be ashamed! He was surprised that a Gentleman of so much practical benevolence as his right hon. Friend (Sir W. Somerville) could have brought in a Bill so contrary to all he had ever heard of his private character as a landlord and a gentleman. He could only suppose that his good nature had been imposed upon by somebody else. The powers proposed to be granted by the Bill were all against the tenant. There were no restrictions upon the landlords, who were not only to have those additional powers, but failing them could fall back upon their common legal remedy as landlords. He should oppose the Bill, and hoped he should be supported by the English and Scotch Members when he told them that the effect of the measure would he to increase the evils that had been denounced in the debate of the previous evening.
MR. NAPIERsaid, that the Devon Commission in their Report had enlarged upon the necessity of elevating socially and morally the condition of the labouring classes; and if this Bill were calculated to raise those classes both morally and socially, what earthly objection could there be to allowing it to go into Committee? A great portion of the Bill had been unanimously sanctioned by a Select Committee of that House, and he believed that every man who had the interests of Ireland at heart would support it, the effect of it being to give to the labouring classes decent homes, the value of which no man could over-estimate.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he was as anxious as any one could be for the improvement of the dwellings of the labouring classes; but his objection to the Bill under consideration was, that it gave to the landlord summary power of disturbing poor tenants, and evicting them not only from their houses, but also from their land and crops. He would be no party to giving additional power to landlords, which might be tyrannically employed. With respect to the state of the city of Cork, which had been alluded to by the noble Lord near him
1792
(Viscount Bernard) he asserted that if there were ruin, desolation, misery, and squalor in the habitations in towns it was the fault of the landlords, who received high rents and neglected their duty. If the right hon. Baronet would expunge from the Bill, its unnecessary and cruel powers, he would do all that he was able to asssist him in improving the dwellings of the poorer classes.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, he should support the Bill on the ground that landlords could not be expected to build new dwellings, unless a return of the capital so invested were secured to them. No one could doubt that one of the very first steps towards raising a poor population in the social scale was to improve their habitations. All experience taught that, and every one knew that it was hopeless to attempt moral improvements in the midst of dirt and filth and squalor.
MR. DEASYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Kennedy) would allow the House at once to go into Committee. All the objections which had been raised against the Bill appeared to him to relate rather to matters of detail than of principle, which he believed might well be discussed in Committee. He trusted that in so important a matter no further delay would be interposed.
MR. MAGANsaid, as an Irish landlord, he did not wish to have the powers which this Bill conferred. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow the process of ejectment to take place at the end of every half-year, instead of in the summary manner provided for in the Bill, there probably would be no objection to allow it to go at once into Committee.
SIR ROBERT FERGUSONsaid, he thought that the whole of the objections to the measure might be considered with advantage in Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee.
Clause 1,
"Provided that such tenement shall have been let by a written or printed agreement, as nearly as possible of the form in the Schedule to this Act, and that it shall have been expressly stated therein whether the said tenement and requisites should be maintained in a good and tenantable condition by the landlord or by the tenant."
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment, the effect of which would be to throw upon the landlords of dwellings which came within the operation of the Act, the necessity of keeping them in repair.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 2, to leave out the word "whether" and insert the word "that."
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he must oppose the Amendment, on the ground that it would be more desirable to leave the question of repairs to be settled by an arrangement between the parties concerned.
LORD NAASsaid, he should also oppose the Amendment, because he thought that it might deprive the landlord of the power of eviction given to him by the Bill in cases where the tenements were not in what might be considered proper repair.
SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he thought that the substantial repairs should be made by the landlord, and the minor repairs by the tenant.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he considered that the Amendment was founded on a misapprehension as to what was the real interest of the tenant. It was by no means always to his interest that all repairs should be made by the landlord.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he would suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that words should be introduced into the Bill, rendering it necessary that an engagement should be entered into between the landlord and tenant as to what repairs should be executed by each.
MR. GEORGEsaid, the great difficulty was how to secure that the houses should be kept in repair, and he hoped that the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville) would persist in the clause as it stood. He objected that the Bill descended into minute details of legislation, thinking that such matters as that would be much better left to the good feeling of landlords and tenants. It would be ridiculous to legislate for the building of a pig-sty, or to lay down in a statute the precise position of a dunghill.
Question put "That the word 'whether' stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 41; Majority 128.
SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he had some apprehension that the effect of the clause would be to make the general tenure in Ireland a monthly one, but he trusted that no peculiar advantages should be given to that tenure.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he objected to the reference to sections of Acts which were
1794
unknown to the majority of Members, and the incorporation of clauses of which the effect was likewise not known. He thought that paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of section 15 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, which was referred to in the Bill, should apply to the rebuilding of tenements.
MR. GEORGEsaid, he would recommend that those references to former Acts should, with the paragraphs referred to, be incorporated into a distinct clause.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he would take care to prevent any misconstruction by an Amendment. He did not intend that the penal provisions in question, should apply to the tenants.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, it was necessary to provide for the prevention of the service of notice to quit on any other than the occupants of the premises.
MR. BOUVERIEhoped the words would be retained, because service in that form was recognised by the English. Statute Law.
MR. BARROWsaid, that was notice of process after service of notice to quit.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, he believed that if personal notice were required the whole enactment would lose its practical value, because tenants would evade the notice by absenting themselves for a short time from their homes.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he would suggest that the words should be passed over now, but that on bringing up the Report all should be omitted after the words "the tenancy shall be determined by a written notice to quit." The effect would be to leave the question of service of notice to be interpreted by the common law.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he would consent to omit, at present, the whole proviso.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he would not now press his objections.
MR. LLOYD DAVIESsaid, he desired to propose an Amendment, the object of which was, that the notice to quit should not be for a shorter period than six months, where the tenement was in the country. In this country there was hardly a pigsty or a shed held under any less period of notice than six months.
LORD NAASsaid, he thought that there should be notice given of the Amendment.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he would suggest that the magistrate should have power to settle accounts between the landlord and

1795
tenant. Would it not be better to withdraw the clause?
MR. BARROWsaid, he considered it an extreme means, to incorporate the provisions of former Acts, so far as they were applicable. It entailed great difficulties on the magistrate, and still more upon the poor peasant.
MR. GEORGEsaid, he hoped that the Bill would preserve to the landlords the advantages which bad been held out to them to induce them to raise better buildings for their tenants.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he wished to move an Amendment which should have the effect of limiting the reference in this Bill to the Summary Jurisdiction Act, so as to include the first paragraph of the 16th section of that Act, and not subsequent paragraphs of the same section.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he would reconsider the clause, and would take care that the Summary Jurisdiction Act should not be incorporated with the present clause, so as to cause any confusion.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid the principle of the Bill seemed to be, that a landlord had a prior claim upon the stock of a tenant before other creditors. He did not see that he had any more claim upon a tenant's effects than the shopkeeper with whom he might have run into debt.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought it desirable as much as possible to encourage the rental of agricultural cottages by the year. A man might then pay his rent without difficulty out of his harvest wages, while if he had to deduct his rent out of his narrow earnings in the winter months he would have very little security for his holding.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he had no doubt that the motives of his right hon. Friend (Sir W. Somerville) in bringing forward the Bill were most pure, benevolent, and excellent; but he had great doubts with regard to some of the details of the measure. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) that a tenure of less than a year was not conducive to the comfort and independence of the agricultural labourer. He had great doubt, also, with respect to the effect of the Bill in legalising the system of conacre in land. Half an acre of land was too much, and he thought that less than a quarter of an acre was the right quantity for an agricultural labourer, unless they wanted to introduce the system of conacre
1796
and small farming. He was afraid, also, if they gave the landlord a more summary power of ejectment than he had he might in some cases subject the occupier to summary treatment unless he paid the highest rent.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he did not think hon. Gentlemen opposite agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle as to the particular limit of land which should be introduced into the Bill. Considering the circumstances of Ireland, he had thought the quantity suggested a just medium. There was nothing compulsory or obligatory in the Bill which did not interfere with existing tenures. He only sought to improve; the condition of the poorer classes in Ireland. The law was in a very unsatisfactory state in that respect. The labouring man in Ireland felt the greatest difficulty in procuring a home or a shelter. There was in the towns and market villages in Ireland a summary power given to the landlord, which he desired to extend. At present a labouring man could not procure a residence near the scene of his labour, and he had now to walk three or four miles to his work; and that evil would be remedied by giving the landlord the same power of recovering his property that was enjoyed in towns. The sanitary state of the people would be likewise much improved by taking means for their living apart from the towns. But he feared that a system of yearly or six monthly tenancy would not secure those advantages to the poor man. He was anxious to give the longest tenure possible, but he believed that the proposal he had made was the one most likely to benefit the labouring population of Ireland.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that it would be preferable to let the landlord and tenant make their own bargains, irrespectively of the Bill.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he believed the Select Committee had been unanimous in agreeing to this particular proposal, and he therefore could not withhold his surprise at the remarks, of the right hon. Member for Carlisle.
MR. MEAGHERsaid, he did not think I the Bill could pass with satisfaction to the House, and would suggest the withdrawal of the measure, or the bringing it in in an amended form.
MR. HORSMANsaid, the Bill had undergone considerable discussion, and nothing could have been more conciliatory

1797
than the tone adopted by the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville). He trusted that the Committee on the Bill might be allowed to proceed.
MR. GEORGEsaid, he wished to point out the difference between the law of England and Ireland with regard to this description of tenancy.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that in the rural districts he knew of no tenure short of six months. The terms suggested in the Bill certainly was not the practice in England, and he should he sorry to see the principle extended to Ireland. The tenure of cottages, whether in England or Ireland, at so short a period as three months, he should think most objectionable.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that as the Bill was to apply to cottages not now in existence, he thought it would be well to leave the arrangement between landlord and tenant optional as to accepting a shorter tenure.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid he would suggest the insertion of the words "any tenancy for a year, or for any less term" in the first clause, in order to meet the right hon. Baronet's objection.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, he would recommend the withdrawal of the section of the clause to which objection had been taken. The clause as to the term of holding, he thought, would be beneficial to the poorer classes of Ireland. The Bill was strictly analogous to the law in England.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he should deeply regret if another Session passed without legislation on this subject, but he greatly feared that if more progress was not made, the Bill would be indefinitely postponed. In deference to the general feeling of the Committee he should be ready, on bringing up the Report, to make the provisions of the Act applicable to every tenancy for a year, or any less term.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman's concession would be a great boon to the labouring classes, and he begged to thank the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) for the observations which had led to it. He would implore the Government to put an end to the impolitic, exceptional legislation which had been applied to Ireland from the time of Dean Swift to the present day. It was preposterous to say that the condition of the labouring classes would be improved by-giving greater powers of eviction to landlords.
MR. KIRKsaid, it was necessary, in order to improve the deplorable condition of Irish agricultural labourers, to make such a change in the law as would induce landlords to build comfortable dwellings, and he believed the Bill under consideration was calculated to effect that object. He was surprised that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) should have confounded the system, which the Bill proposed to introduce, with the conacre system.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he had not said that the Bill would introduce the conacre system, but that he was afraid it might lead to the introduction of that system. He was afraid that when a tenant held less than half an acre for a less term than a year, at a rent of £7 or £9, a landlord would be able to exercise his right at a week or a month's notice, and proceed summarily to eviction.
MR. KIRKsaid he would refer the right hon. Baronet to the fourth section, which provided that the outgoing tenant should have compensation for crops.
MR. KENNEDYsaid, he objected to the Bill, both in principle and detail.
MR. BRADYsaid, he now would beg to move an Amendment in that part of the clause which enumerated the requisites to be provided for every tenement, to the effect that it should be furnished, in addition to a water-closet, with "a proper fall and drainage therefrom."
MR. FORTESCUEsaid, they were, in his opinion, losing time in discussing such an Amendment. The question really was not whether the objects of the Amendment should be carried out, but whether the poor were to have any houses at all. The hon. Gentleman reminded him of Canning' s ballad, where the philosopher, who was asked by the poor man for his dinner, gave him a dissertation on the rights of man. They were, in fact, invited to discuss the luxuries of legislation, when they ought to be satisfied with necessaries.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he must oppose the Amendment as unnecessary.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 174: Majority 121.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 159: Majority 135.
House resumed: Committee report progress.
House adjourned at seven minutes before Six o'clock.

PUBLIC THANKSGIVING.
Ordered—That The Lord Bishop of BATH and WELLS be and is hereby desired to preach before this House in the Abbey Church, Westminster, on Sunday next the 4th Day of May, being appointed by HER MAJESTY'S Royal Proclamation a Day of Public Thanksgiving for the Restoration of Peace between Her Majesty, Her Majesty's Allies, and His Imperial Majesty The Emperor of all the Russias.
House adjourned to Friday next, Ten o'clock.