Sitting of 25 July 1866

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Sir Graham Graham Montgomery, baronet, for Peebles-shire.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Landed Estates Court, &c. (Ireland) [Salaries].
Resolutions reported—Fortifications and Works.
Ordered—Fortifications and Works*; Oysters Cultivation (Ireland).*
First Reading—New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land Government* [242] [Lords]; Oysters Cultivation (Ireland)* [243]; Fortifications (Provision for Expenses)* [244].
Second Reading—Parishes (Scotland) Act (1848) Amendment* [232].
Committee—Public Libraries Act Amendment (re-comm) [241].
Report—Public Libraries Act Amendment (re-comm.) [241].
Considered as amended—Fees (Public Departments)* [223].
Third Reading—Inland Revenue* [209]; Colonial Branch Mints* [215]; Tramways (Ireland) Acts Amendment* [149].
Withdrawn — Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) [190]; Sea Coast Fisheries (Ireland) [147]; Finsbury Estate [97]; Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland) [201]; Tenure and Improvement of Land (Ireland) [130].

PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 241.]
(Mr. William Ewart, Mr. Dunlop.)

COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses agreed to.
MR. CHEETHAMmoved a new clause to the effect that Libraries and Museums established under the Acts named in the Bill be exempted from rates.
Clause (Libraries and Museums exempted from rates,)—(Mr. Cheetham,)—brought up, and read the first time.
MR. EARLEobjected to the clause, as introducing a new principle.
MR. CHEETHAMsaid, that was not the case, for the words of the clause were taken from the existing Act.
MR. AYRTONhoped that the clause would not be pressed. The general question of exemption from rating required consideration; and that general question ought not to be embarrassed by the creation of another special exemption by exceptional legislation.
LORD NAAStestified to the inconvenience which arose in Ireland from these special exemptions from rating.
MR. POWELLtrusted that the President of the Poor Law Board would be able next year to introduce a Bill dealing with the whole subject of the exemption of charitable institutions from rating; but he agreed that an exceptional clause like this was objectionable.
MR. M'LARENsupported the clause, thinking that as these museums and libraries were themselves to be supported out of the rates, it would be a cumbrous proceeding to render them liable to payment of rates.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that the force of that argument was much weakened by the fact that the area of rating had lately been changed from the parish to the whole union, many parts of which might not share in the benefits of these institutions.
MR. WALPOLEthought the objection valid; the effect of the exemption would be to throw a burden on other parts of the union besides that in which the museum or library existed. He thought it would be the best course to withdraw the clause.
MR. HENLEYthought that the Government would soon be obliged to take the whole question of rating into consideration with a view of settling the doubts as to the exemptions claimed by certain institutions. After the decision of the House of Lords in the Mersey Docks case it had become necessary to deal with the question as a whole. He should certainly vote against the proposed clause, because of the inconvenience of introducing another statutable exemption. He also thought

1455
that the class of property affected by the Bill had no very strong case for claiming exemption from rates.
MR. NEATEsaid, he quite agreed that the whole subject of rating must immediately come under revision. He was, however, afraid that the effect of any general measure on the subject would be to extend the area of rating rather than to limit it; he was, therefore, desirous that the institutions in question should have the advantage of exemption before the enactment of any general measure, and he should, consequently, vote in favour of the clause.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he would remind the Committee that an attempt was made to introduce a clause of this sort into a Bill some years ago for the purpose of exempting fine art and certain other institutions from the payment of rates. On that occasion he (Mr. G. Hardy) felt it his duty to oppose the proposition, and it was ultimately rejected by the House. It appeared to him that there was still greater reason why the present clause should be rejected on the grounds stated by his right hon. Friend. It should be recollected that a great change had been recently made in the law, whereby, instead of parish rating, there was now established a union rating; and these institutions, however beneficial they might be to the particular parishes in which they were situated, were probably of little advantage to the union generally. Whatever was done upon the subject of rating ought, he thought, to be done by a general measure. Instead of wishing to increase the present list of special exemptions he was much more inclined to repeal them, and place the entire subject on a broader and more satisfactory basis. He hoped the House would not sanction the clause.
MR. GILPINsaid, he was wholly opposed to the establishment of any additional exceptional legislation, at a time when the whole subject must be taken into the consideration of the Government.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The Committee divided;—Ayes 10; Noes 54: Majority 44.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 241.]

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 190.]
(Sir Colman O'Loghlen, Mr. Gregory.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. GREGORYsaid, that at this period of the Session it would be idle for him to attempt to proceed further with a Bill of this magnitude; but in the absence of the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), who had drawn the Bill, he hoped he would be allowed to make a few observations respecting its objects, with a view to their being considered by all those who took an interest in the subject during the approaching recess. The Bill proceeded upon the principle that in order to encourage the application of capital and labour to the cultivation of the land in Ireland it was expedient to give tenants a more secure occupation of their holdings than a mere tenancy at will or one from year to year, and its object was to discourage, as far as possible, such holdings, and to hold out inducements to landlords to give leases to their tenants. It proposed—as had been proposed in the Bill of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland—that in every case where there was no written contract between the landlord and tenant, the law should presume that there was an agreement for a lease. In other words, it was proposed that for the future a tenancy of agricultural land from year to year could only be created by an agreement in writing. In the case of the absence of any such written contract any tenancy of agricultural land created after the passing of the Bill should be deemed and taken to be a tenancy under an agreement for twenty-one years. In order to induce landlords to give these leases, discouragements to a certain degree were thrown in the way of the continuance of this system of yearly tenancy. For example, it was proposed that any such tenancy created after the passing of the Bill should entitle the tenant to deduct from his rent one-half of the county cess. It was further laid down in the Bill that in respect to yearly tenancies the landlord should not be entitled to distrain for rent. But the great point on which the Bill turned was to be found in the 11th clause, which enacted that in case the landlord should eject his tenant for any other cause than that of the nonpayment of rent the tenant should

1457
be entitled to compensation. That was no new principle, inasmuch as it was one that had always been recognized in the compensations paid by railway companies, who not only paid the landlord for the property in fee, but also compensated the tenant when it was necessary to take land or premises occupied by the latter. Those were the main provisions of the Bill. It should also be remarked that all these provisions were prospective. On the other hand, in order to avoid any confusion or litigation that might arise from extending this Bill to every kind of minute holding, it was proposed to exempt from its operation all occupations under £4 a year. Now, this measure was intended to apply to a state of things which in his opinion did not exist in any other country that could be called civilized. In Prussia there was no such thing known as yearly tenancies or tenancies at will. All the land there was held under leases of longer or shorter duration. In England there were no doubt a large number of tenancies at will; but those holdings were upon a totally different foundation to what they were in Ireland. If a landlord in England evicted his tenant the latter suffered no wrong in respect to improvements, inasmuch as they were generally made by the landlord himself. The reverse, as a rule, was the case in Ireland, where the tenants, at the cost of their own labour and money, effected improvements on their land. There they were frequently evicted from their own improvements, to which their landlords had not contributed probably one farthing. Amongst the many measures introduced from time to time for the advantage of Ireland none had proved more beneficial than the Incumbered Estates Court. This Court had had the effect of introducing a new and solvent proprietary to replace the old insolvent class that formed a considerable portion of the landlords of Ireland. By this there was effected great improvement in the general condition of the country. But as far as the condition of the tenantry of Ireland was concerned the operation of the Incumbered Estates Court tended not to improve it. Though the old proprietors were often of a needy and spend-thrift character their sympathies and interests were more or less identified with their tenants; whereas the new proprietors having purchased their estates in those Courts in the way of mercantile transactions had no particular attachment to or sympathy with the old tenantry. They immediately
1458
set about raising their rents, consolidating their farms, without any regard to the long standing or exertions of the existing tenants. He believed that this insecurity of tenure in Ireland was detrimental to the landlord himself, in tending to lower the value of the land, and to create agrarian outrages throughout the country. It encouraged the demand for fixity of tenure and compulsory valuation. It confirmed the occupying tenant in his belief of possessing an inherent right to the soil of which the law unjustly deprived him; and it was precisely in the case of properties where tenants had held in undisturbed possession from generation to generation on tenancies at will, that this right to the soil was believed in, and actually pleaded in Courts of Justice. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clare had framed this measure with no idea whatever of superseding the Bill of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland; but as for his (Mr. Gregory's) motives for allowing his name to be put on the back of the Bill, he had done so for the very purpose of superseding that Bill. He was afraid that the Bill of his right hon. Friend, if passed, would have been productive of an endless amount of litigation and ill-feeling between landlords and tenants. The provisions of this Bill would be free from that objection. He had not proceeded in this matter from a mere desire of popularity, but had introduced it solely for the benefit of the country. Everything he had was derived from land in Ireland. He moved to discharge the Order for the second reading of the Bill, with the distinct pledge on the part of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clare and himself that it would be introduced next Session at the earliest possible moment.
Motion agreed to.
Order discharged: Bill withdrawn.

SEA COAST FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
(Mr. Blake, Mr. Brady.)
[BILL 147.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. BLAKE,in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that as the Session was then so far advanced, and there were some portions of the Bill which might involve controversy, especially those clauses removing nearly all restrictions on trawl-fishing—thus assimilating the Irish to the English fishery law—he would not

1459
ask the House to consent to pass the Bill in its entirety. There were thirty-four clauses altogether in the Bill, every one of which he believed to be desirable, but he was willing for this Session to give them all up except two, the 3rd and 29th clauses. If even these were passed, he believed they would, if properly carried out, not only arrest the fearful decline that was going on in the fisheries, but also give a stimulus to that branch of industry calculated to raise it to the position it ought to occupy. The third clause proposed to combine the sea coast with the inland fisheries under one administration, making it as much an independent department as any other. The 29th clause proposed to extend the provisions of the 10 Vict. to the Act which would enable the Commissioners of Public Works to advance loans for the cultivation of oysters, the building of piers, and also for the building and repairing of fishing vessels and boats, and the purchase of fishing gear, &c., on satisfactory security being given for the repayment. In order to show the utility of passing these clauses he would lay before the House a brief statement of the actual condition of the fisheries, and the manner in which they had declined for the last twenty years. He would quote from the Report of the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the fisheries of the United Kingdom. They stated that there was a great falling off in the number of boats and men employed along the coast. In the year 1830 there were 13,119 vessels of all classes, and 64,771 men and boys employed in the trade. In 1836, when the stimulus of bounties or loan funds was withdrawn, the number of vessels fell to 10,761, and the men and boys to 54,119. In 1845, immediately before the famine, the number of vessels was 19,888, and the men and boys 93,073; in 1848 (after the famine), the number of vessels fell to 16,932, and the men and boys to 70,111, whilst last year the number of vessels was but 9,300, and the hands had fallen to 40,946. This showed a diminution within the last twenty years of 10,583 boats and of 52,127 men. The Commissioners added that the numbers given for 1864, reduced as they were, still appeared to be large as compared with the produce of the fisheries indicated by the railway returns and the supplies in the principal markets. The Commissioners recommend that all Acts of Parliament which profess to regulate or restrict the
1460
modes of fishing pursued in the open sea should be repealed, and that unrestricted freedom of fishing be permitted hereafter. The Report of the Royal Commissioners was brought down to 1864, and detailed the state of things up to 1865. The Report from the Irish Fisheries Commissioners just issued enabled him by a little calculation to ascertain the exact state of the fisheries up to the present moment. That Report, he was pained to say, exhibited even a sadder picture than the preceding account, as it appeared from it that in 1865, as compared with 1864, there had been a decrease in the year of 311 fishing vessels and boats, and 3,026 men and boys. The numbers now stand 8,989 vessels of all classes, and 37,920 men and boys, as against 19,883 vessels and 93,073 men and boys in 1845, so that in round numbers the vessels and boats had decreased to one-half, and there was only one-third of the men and boys left. In addition to deaths from famine and emigration having caused such a decrease in those following fishing pursuits, another great reason was the increased poverty of the people preventing them not only from buying new boats and gear, but even from keeping the old ones in repair, and in consequence many a stalwart fellow willing and able to fish had to abandon the calling. He had seen hundreds of instances of this around various parts of the coast, and had no doubt, if enabled to do so, thousands would be found to follow the avocation with advantage to themselves and the country. He did not advocate, or even wish, that anything should be given to them as a gift, but that they should give satisfactory security, and be made to repay every shilling. He believed at the time Government advanced loans to fishermen, they were in the end repayed within a few hundred pounds of what they had advanced. There was a society in Dublin established he believed by the excellent Society of Friends for assisting poor fishermen. They had only £;2,000 or £3,000 at their disposal, the residue of some charitable fund. It was generally nearly all lent out, did a vast deal of good as far as it went, and he heard a short time ago from the Secretary, that they hardly ever made a bad debt. As the House was aware, great improvements had lately taken place in the cultivation of oysters. Twenty times as much could be produced in Ireland as at present. To encourage their cultivation he proposed to allow the 10 Vict. to be ex-

1461
tended, so as to enable persons entitled to borrow money for the improvement of their land, to obtain loans for oyster culture. By giving security they could now get advances for drainage, subsoiling, trenching, &c.; irrigation, embankments from sea or river, enclosing and fencing, reclamation of waste lands, farm roads, clearing lands, farm buildings, scutch mills, labourers' dwellings. Why should they not be allowed to carry on their improvements below high-water mark, and plant oyster beds on giving the same security for re-payment? The return would be likely to be larger than from any other kind of outlay. In a report of a lecture on the Irish Fisheries, by Mr. J. Hoare, which appeared in a leading journal (The Irish Times), he saw that a gentleman purchased a tract of land adjoining the sea for £100. During ten years he expended from £10 to £15 a year on it in cultivating oysters, and he sold it lately for £24,000. As he had already stated, he was of opinion that it would be desirable to separate the Fishery Department from the Board of Works. He wished to speak of the Board of Works with the greatest respect; but he thought they had as much work on their hands as they could manage without being burdened with the fisheries. The Inspecting Commissioner of Fisheries, Mr. Barry, speaking of the Board, said—
"The truth is their hands were so full that it was with extreme difficulty that those engaged in the Irish sea fisheries could obtain their co-operation."
The Royal Commissioners, in speaking of the Board, remark—
"The fisheries of Ireland are also legally under the control of a Board, which possesses almost unlimited powers; but it is the practice of the Board to exert their powers as little as possible, and only under pressure from without."
In conclusion, he hoped the noble Lord representing the Irish Government (Lord Naas) would take the suggestion he had offered into immediate consideration, and if he would not consent to allow the two clauses to pass which he wanted, then it was to be hoped before the close of the Session he would introduce some measure himself to arrest if possible the further decay of their fisheries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had on a late occasion spoken some encouraging words with regard to Ireland, and left it to be inferred that his Government would do their best to stay emigration by endeavouring to develop the industrial resources of the
1462
country. He believed it would be impossible for him to select a more hopeful field for exertion in that way than in promoting the fisheries, or one likely to yield more immediate, larger and permanent results, and involving less risk and trouble. To no one more than to the present Chief Secretary for Ireland was credit due for the passing of the Inland Fisheries Act of three years since, and which had been already productive of so much advantage. The improvement of the sea fisheries was an object of far greater importance, and he trusted the noble Lord would use the influence with which his high position invested him, by an earnest endeavour to place this great national resource in the prosperous position it might be made to occupy.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." —(Mr. Blake.)
GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he hoped the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not interfere and alter the present regulations with reference to trawlers. The Government were in a difficult position relative to that subject, there being two Reports—that of the Royal Commissioners, and that of the Board of Works—which were diametrically opposed to each other, and it would therefore be necessary for the Government to use great caution in dealing with them. The proposed transference of the control of the fisheries from the Board of Works, he thought, would be advantageous, and anything that would develop the resources of the oyster fisheries would be beneficial. No branch of industry could be more beneficial aided by loans than the Irish sea fisheries, and he believed that they would be fully repaid and that the Exchequer would suffer no loss.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he entirely approved of the removal of the superintendence of fisheries in Ireland from the Board of Works; but he thought that it would be unwise at this late period of the Session to legislate upon the subject. Negotiations were now going on between England and France for the regulation of sea fisheries, and when those negotiations had resulted in a convention it would be necessary that there should be some general legislation upon the subject, under which he trusted that the Irish fisheries would be placed under the same regulations as those of England and Scotland, and that the

1463
fishermen would be taught to rely upon their own exertions, and not upon any system of protection.
LORD NAASsaid, that no man was more qualified than the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) to speak on a subject to which he had for many years devoted his attention. He had sat with the hon. Member upon more than one Committee which had derived considerable advantage from his knowledge of the subject. He must say he thought that the hon. Gentleman had exercised a proper discretion in not going on with the Bill, seeing that it contained many important enactments on which a great diversity of opinion existed, and which the House could not accept without very careful and ample deliberation. The hon. Gentleman himself proposed to press two clauses only. The first of these related to the control of the Irish fisheries, which it proposed to withdraw from the Board of Works, and transferred to a separate Commission. He (Lord Naas) had never concealed his opinion that the whole constitution of the Fishery Commission was very defective. It was a mere offset from the Board of Works, which was wholly independent of the Irish Government and under the control of the Treasury. If the Fishery Commission were to be remodelled, it would be better to place it under the Irish Executive; but he did not think that it would be wise to come to any decision as to the body to whom their direction should be intrusted until the Royal Commission, which he believed would conclude its labours in a week or two, had made its Report. More than that, it would, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) had pointed out, soon become necessary for the Government to take into consideration the whole question of the fisheries of the United Kingdom; and he thought that it would be better to leave this matter of the management of the fisheries of Ireland to be dealt with by a general measure, than to make it the subject of special legislation. His own individual opinion was that a very large alteration in the constitution of the Irish Fishery Commission ought to be made. The hon. Gentleman proposed in the 29th clause to make loans for many objects connected with the Irish fisheries—for making oyster-beds, for the building of piers, dredging of harbours, erection of curing houses, the repairing of boats, and the purchase of fishing gear. It was ques-
1464
tionable whether industrial undertakings of the latter character were benefited by a system of loans. The hon. Gentleman's proposal seemed to partake of the old system of bounties which had been found to be injurious to every system to which it had been applied. He doubted whether the purchase of implements and the repair of boats for carrying on the fishing would be beneficial to the fishery interest itself, or would be favourably considered by the House of Commons. For these reasons he was afraid he could not promise the hon. Gentleman to take up these clauses. The Government, however, were fully aware of the immense importance of this question. Among the undeveloped resources of Ireland there were none greater or more important than the fisheries, not only because of the stores of cheap and wholesome food which might thus be gained for the use of the people, but because of the amount of employment thus provided for the fishermen, from which body the Royal Navy and the mercantile marine were largely recruited. Attempts were made to establish elementary schools to teach navigation, and the Government would do what it could to make them more useful to the people. The late Government had introduced a Bill on the subject of the oyster fishery, which had gone up to the other House of Parliament, and which was intended to cure a defect in the law, and he had already given notice of his intention to introduce a Bill on the subject of licences for oyster beds. He agreed that legislation on this subject next Session was absolutely necessary. There was an enormous amount of valuable information at the disposal of the Government, so that they would be in a condition to take up the question at a very early period.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill withdrawn.

FINSBURY ESTATE BILL— [BILL 97.]
(Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Locke.)

COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. AYRTONtook occasion to explain that its provisions—which had, he said, been much misrepresented—were based not on any general principle applicable to

1465
the whole country, but on specific grounds, having reference to the metropolis alone. The Church in London was formerly endowed with a large extent of land which now formed part of the area of the metropolis, and a good deal of that property had, he regretted to say, by the countenance of the ecclesiastical authorities on the one hand, and lay persons of influence and station on the other, been alienated from the Church, so as to be no longer available for the maintenance of its ministers. There were two or three fields, however, which were fortunately not so appropriated in the parish of Finsbury, which, owing to the extension of the metropolis, had become covered with houses; and the Bill proceeded upon the principle that the monies resulting from the increased value thus created should be spent, in the first instance, in the relief of the spiritual wants of the inhabitants of London whereas those funds had hitherto been made available by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to meet the spiritual necessities of the whole kingdom. It was said, indeed, that the metropolis had been so benefited by the action of the Commission that the proposal contained in the Bill was unreasonable; but when it was borne in mind that the Commissioners were deriving from metropolitan property an income of £52,000 a year, and that up to the 1st of April, 1865—the date of the last Returns on the subject—they had laid out in contributing to the wants of the metropolis only some £19,400 a year, he did not think the House would be disposed to regard it in that light. Under the circumstances of the case, it appeared to him that the poorer classes of the metropolis had the best claim upon the property in question, and that their spiritual necessities ought to be provided for out of it in preference to those of the country at large. He had intended to press the Bill through all its stages this Session, under the belief that if it were not passed immediately the funds might be appropriated by the Commissioners in such a way as to render it impossible to accomplish the object which he had in view. He had, however, within the last few days, received an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that nothing would be done with the property before the middle of next Session, and that ample opportunity would thus be afforded for again discussing the question before it was too late. Under these circumstances he should move that the Order
1466
for going into Committee on the Bill be discharged.
Order discharged: Bill withdrawn.

CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND) BILL.
(Mr. Blake, Mr. Synan.)
[BILL 201.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. BLAKE,in moving that the Bill be read a second time, expected, when he explained the defects in the present Act relative to charities, and the losses which were consequently incurred by the poor, that the House would concur with him that legislation was imperatively called for. The preamble of the present Act stated that it was expedient that the pious intentions of charitable persons should not be frustrated by the concealment or misapplication of their bequests. It was manifestly the intention of the Act, that money left for benevolent objects should be duly administered. Unfortunately, however, the powers of the Board were inadequate for the purposes intended. They were authorized to sue for the recovery of charities which might be concealed, withheld or misapplied, but they had no power to originate inquiries, and could only be set in motion at the instance of other persons. It unfortunately happened, too, that a fraud must have been actually committed before active steps could be taken to prevent further misappropriation. The Commissioners, moreover, could not interfere to protect a charity fund where a life interest intervened, or compel it to be placed in proper security. If an estate were about being sold on which a charity had a claim, no measures could be taken to protect the interests of the poor if the annual payments had been regularly made before. The Commissioners were obliged to carry out the wills of testators literally, making no allowance for change of time or circumstances; thus, in the case of Jeremy Hall's charity at Limerick, they were precluded—according to a will made 150 years ago, when money was much more valuable than at present—from giving a schoolmaster and mistress more than £10 a year each, and in consequence the school would have to be closed. Mr. Blake then read, at some length, extracts from a pamphlet by Mr. Gernon, one of the Secretaries of the Board, the evidence of Mr. Hercules M'Donnell before the Endowed Schools

1467
Commission, and a portion of the Report of the Commission, to show the defects in the law, and proceeded: The requirements to render the law effective might be classed thus:—1. Power to interfere where a charity fund was in danger of being lost. 2. Power to look after the securities in which charity funds were placed. 3. To sue by civil bill for small amounts. 4. To accept charitable trusts from persons anxious to make the Board depositories. 5. To accept compromise when all could not be got. 6. To advise trustees of charities as to the best mode of fulfilling their trust. In order to render the Board more efficient the quorum should be reduced; it was often found difficult to get a meeting, as would be seen by the letter Sir Robert Peel addressed to the Master of the Rolls, and the list of abortive meetings for the last year. It was most desirable, in order to insure meetings, and to add to the efficiency of the Board, to snake the present Secretaries paid Commissioners. They were gentlemen of the highest character and abilities, and gave every one satisfaction. Some additional outlay would be required for the effective working of the Board; the whole expenses would not, however, exceed £3,000 a year, which ought not to be considered too much, when the English Commission cost £18,000. The Bill which. he had introduced would, if passed, meet all the requirements he had mentioned; and he believed would be the means of saving the poor from much loss, through the cupidity or ignorance of trustees. He should not, however, at this period of the Session, object to withdraw the Bill if the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland would give him an assurance that he would himself introduce a measure dealing with the subject early next Session.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Blake.)
MR. SYNANsaid, that the constitution of the body by whom charitable bequests were administered in Ireland was undoubtedly defective. He suggested that there should be paid Commissioners, as was provided by the Bill. There was a small charity in the city of Limerick with which he was connected which remained to this moment unadministered, because the existing Commissioners refused to render themselves liable for the costs which an application to the Court of Chancery would
1468
involve. In accordance with the provisions of the charity to which he referred, which dated from 1687, a sum of £10 was to be devoted to the payment of a schoolmaster; but it was quite manifest that so small a payment was totally inadequate to the requirements of the present day. A further sum was left for the purpose of releasing poor debtors from prison; but the law on the subject of imprisonment for debt had since been entirely altered, and the Charity Commissioners had no power to divert the monies thus bequeathed to the accomplishment of some useful end. The object of the Bill was, under those circumstances, to bring the Commissioners into more immediate connection with the charity, and to give them power to deal with it without wasting the funds in applications to the Court of Chancery. There were now a great many charities at a standstill in Ireland, and he there-Are hoped the Government would take the subject into their serious consideration, paying, above all things, due regard to the religious feelings and habits of the Irish people, and abstaining from attempting to extend to Ireland the Acts in force in this country, because any such attempt would only tend to arouse feelings of hostility.
MR. MONSELLconsidered that great caution ought to be employed in legislating on this subject, while at the same time the differences between the present state of the law in England and Ireland showed the necessity of introducing some fresh legislation upon it.
MR. PIMsaid, that unless the matter should be properly taken up the best thing that could happen would be the dissolution of the Board. He did not believe that the English Act could be adapted to Ireland, but had no doubt that a measure could be framed which would work usefully. If any measure was brought in it ought to be introduced by the Government and not by a private Member.
MR. M'LARENobserved, that power was taken by the Bill for the appointment of two paid Commissioners, the charge of whose salaries was to be defrayed by the Consolidated Fund, and he objected to the appointment of paid men to do that which might very well be done by unpaid men.
LORD NAASsaid, the question was a very important one, and had been frequently considered by Parliament. The Commissioners were of opinion that if their duties and powers should be increased they would be unable to discharge

1469
them. It was quite evident that great evils existed in Ireland from the want of a proper control over charities. In many instances funds intended for specific purposes had been diverted to others, or had been left in abeyance. He did not think that a Bill on the subject ought to be introduced unless it was likely to receive a very general approbation from all parties in Ireland; but if he could see his way to the construction of such a measure he should be happy to assist in the settlement of the question.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill withdrawn.

TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 130.]
(Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [17th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, though desirous of simplifying the method of securing to tenants compensation for outlay made in permanent improvements, is of opinion that, in any measure relating to the Tenure and Improvement of Land in Ireland, it is expedient to maintain the principle affirmed by the Act of 1860—namely, that compensation to tenants should be secured in respect of those improvements only which are made with the consent of the Landlord; and that the provisions as to the Improvement of Land in Ireland contained in the Measure of Her Majesty's Government would operate injuriously on the position of holders of small farms in that Country,"—(Lord Naas,)
—instead thereof.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
Debate resumed.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that when listening to what fell from his hon. Friend the Member for Galway county (Mr. Gregory) in withdrawing his Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill, he was surprised to hear him state that, while his own Bill was most unobjectionable and efficient, the Bill of the late Government was highly objectionable and almost revolutionary. There were many things which he approved in the Bill of the hon. Member, and it was founded on the same principle as the Bill now under consideration—namely, that it was just and ex-
1470
pedient that the general law of the land should be put on a righteous footing, leaving, at the same time, to parties the freedom of individual contract. He therefore could not conceive that those who approved the principle of the Bill of the hon. Member for Galway could disapprove the principle of the Bill of the late Government. In consequence of an answer given by the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, to a question asked the other day, declining to take charge of this Bill, he and the Members of the late Government, in communication with the leading supporters of the measure, had come to the conclusion that it would be unwise and futile to continue during the present Session the attempt to carry the Bill, and therefore he would move that the Order for the second reading should be discharged. He was not, however, prepared to make that Motion in perfect silence, for he had something to say as to the Resolution moved by the noble Lord as an Amendment to the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, and also with respect to something which had been said with respect to the character of the Bill by a noble Lord in another place. The present Bill proceeded on a principle different from that on which former attempts at legislation on the subject had for many years been founded. The Bills introduced in former years were founded on the principle that the tenant should have the right of calling on the landlord to execute required improvements himself or to consent to their execution, and if the landlord refused assent, the tenant, subject to the adjudication of some tribunal or authority, was to have the right to make the improvements in spite of that dissent, and charge the landlord for them. The Bill of Lord Derby in 1845 contained compulsory powers of that nature, and notwithstanding the violent opposition of many distinguished Members of his own party the principle received the support of the Earl of Devon, the head of the Irish Land Commission. The Resolution proposed by the noble Lord the present Chief Secretary for Ireland properly applied, therefore, to former Bills, and not to the Bill of the late Government, which was founded on a different and more practical principle—namely, that it was right that the general law of the land in Ireland should be put on a wise and just foundation, and brought into accordance with the facts of the case and the

1471
dictates of natural equity. The Bill created by law implied contracts between landlord and tenant in the absence of special contracts to the contrary, and proposed to introduce into the law a custom, as it were, of the country, regulating the relations between landlord and tenant, on a principle analogous in character to that which prevailed in England. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members meant no doubt that this Bill would go beyond any customs prevailing in England, and he admitted that that was, as it ought to be, the case, for in England the strict letter of the law between landlord and tenant was tempered in a thousand ways for the benefit of the tenant—by the hereditary ancestral confidence between landlord and tenant, by the action of an efficient public opinion, by the wealth and power of the body of tenants, and, above all, by important agricultural customs prevailing over the country. None of these things were to be found in Ireland, where they were most wanted. Under these circumstances, the late Government proposed the present Bill with the view of introducing into Ireland for the protection of tenants something in principle like the customs which prevailed in England, though applied to more permanent improvements, and to put the general law on a more satisfactory footing, leaving at the same time perfect freedom of contact between man and man. He believed that this Bill would go far to ensure to tenants their just rights. With such a conviction the Government had introduced the Bill. It was their belief that sooner or later such legislation must take place. It was with surprise that he had heard the Bill described elsewhere by an high authority connected with Ireland, as founded on a principle almost sufficient to create a revolution in that country, because it was one invariably put forward by those who sought to make the people rise against the Imperial Government—namely, the principle of the redistribution of land. Such vague and excited language could hardly be answered by argument, but could only be met by protest and by explaining the nature of the Bill. It was his firm conviction that those were not revolutionists who proposed remedial legislation for Ireland, and that what had a revolutionary tendency in Ireland was the disposition to resist every attempt to put the tenant on a fair and right footing. He had stated last winter upon a pub-
1472
lic occasion in Dublin that it was not enough to take strong measures to put down Fenianism, but that it was the duty of the Legislature to dry up the sources of sedition, and to cut away the elements of discontent and disaffection, while enforcing the law for the preservation of order. Though circumstances compelled them now to propose the withdrawal of the Bill, the Government were convinced that it was founded on the principles of wisdom and justice; and he believed that some such measure must be introduced and passed if good relations between England and Ireland were to be maintained. It was further the conviction of the late Government in introducing the present Bill that by such legislation they would not only conciliate the feelings of the people in Ireland towards the Imperial Government, but also the feelings of that great Irish colony which exercised so much influence on another Government beyond the Atlantic. It was well known that nothing stood so much in the way of cordial relations between England and the United States as the hostility of the Irish colony in America to the English Government; and the House might depend upon it that every sincere attempt made to conciliate the people of Ireland would act on their countrymen in America and tend to improve the relations of England with a nation in reference to which it was most important to be on a friendly footing. These were the ideas with which the Bill was introduced, and in withdrawing it he reserved to himself perfect freedom as to introducing it again in the next Session. Those with whom he had the honour of acting would consider, when the proper time arrived, what it would be their duty to do on this subject for the interest of Ireland. That would depend mainly on the course taken by the present Government, with whom now rested the responsibility, and whose conduct with reference to this great question would be looked to most anxiously. He would now propose that the Motion for the second reading and the Amendment be withdrawn.
LORD NAASsaid, he should only say a few words, as he had on a former occasion addressed the House at great length on the subject. His principal object in moving the Amendment to which allusion had been made was to elicit from the House an opinion as to the principle on which legislation with respect to this subject should proceed. In terms, the Amendment was

1473
almost precisely the same as a Resolution moved in the Select Committee of last year, and accepted by Her Majesty's then Government. That Resolution was submitted to the Committee by himself, with the full concurrence of the then Secretary for Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford. His Resolution contained a principle from which he thought the House ought not lightly to depart; and if legislation could be submitted to the House not antagonistic to that principle, very useful legislation, he thought, might be founded upon it. Looking to the course which this question had taken for many years, and the failures that had taken place, he felt that until some principle was laid down by the House on the subject it would be fruitless to expect any legislation at all upon it. He was far from thinking that considerable inducement to improvement might not be held out by legislation—he had never held any other opinion than that; but he did think they ought in any legislation upon this subject to consider what they were likely to pass, and he did not think they were likely to pass through that House—certainly the other House would not pass—any measure by which compensation would be given for improvements effected on property not only without the knowledge but contrary to the wishes of the proprietors. Now that principle was to a certain extent departed from in the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. By the 29th clause the landlord would be placed in this position, that if any improvement was about to be made to which he objected he would be obliged to interfere, and say to his tenant, you must sign a certain contract or you must not go on with it. He did not believe that the Bill, if passed, would be largely taken advantage of; but to whatever extent it was brought into operation it would certainly be to the disadvantage both of the landlord and the tenant. The great object of legislation should be to endeavour to bring about a better understanding than was said now to exist between landlord and tenant. His object in moving the Resolution was to show that the Bill would, in a great measure, interfere with the interests of the landlord; but he believed it would interfere still more with the interests of the tenant, and he thought it would be extremely difficult to get over that objection. He believed that a better feeling was springing up between landlords and tenants, and there was no disposition on the part of
1474
landlords in general to prevent tenants from making improvements under special contracts, or to grant them compensation for such improvements. Where the tenant had any desire to improve, in ninety-nine cases out of 100 he was not only permitted to do so, but obtained direct encouragement from the landlord to do so. Surely the persons most interested in the improvements being made were the landlords themselves. His right hon. Friend had stated that the customs which prevailed in England with regard to compensation to tenants were altogether unknown in Ireland; but he forgot that in a great portion of Ireland—the province of Ulster—the custom of tenant right existed, and was more generally recognized than anything of the kind known in England. Now he was informed if the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman passed it would very much interfere with the custom that prevails in Ulster. With regard to the future of this question it was impossible for him to give any pledge to the House. He was as desirous as any Member could be to support or introduce any measure that might have for its object the securing to the Irish tenantry compensation for improvements really beneficial to the land. He quite admitted that many cases of injustice were committed, and he should be most happy if he could see his way to some legislation in order to prevent them; but any measure, of which the tendency was to create litigation and create ill feeling between landlord and tenant, would have a far more disastrous effect on the tenant than upon the rights of the landlord. He could assure the House if it were possible to undertake a measure which should provide the securing of compensation for bonâ fide improvements made in land without interfering with what he believed to be the just rights of property, it should have his most hearty concurrence; and if the present Government could contrive such a measure they would feel it their duty to submit it for the consideration of the House.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the noble Lord was perfectly right in not holding out any expectations on this subject unless he felt a reasonable assurance that he would be able to realize them. He must, therefore, commend the fairness and frankness of the noble Lord, who did not at present see his way to the production of a measure such as he described.
LORD NAAS: I did not say that. I

1475
said I should have been happy if I could have seen my way to such a measure.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not pretend to quote the language of the noble Lord. He was very glad the noble Lord did see his way, although he understood him to say he did not. ["No, no!"] At all events, the noble Lord could give them no pledge; but if he believed he did see his way to any measure of improved legislation on this subject, it was his duty to tell the House that he meant to propose it. At all events, the noble Lord said he did not think it possible to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion on this subject unless on the basis of some principle which should be pretty generally assented to; but the noble Lord had not enunciated on his own part any such principle, and had given them no light whatever as to the principle which, in his opinion, should form the basis of a measure. The Bill of his right hon. Friend (Mr. C. Fortescue) on the other hand did stand on a principle perfectly distinct and clear—that of supplying in the law of Ireland that equity and justice on this subject of which in the present state of the law there was great lack. The noble Lord had referred to what was known as Ulster tenant right; but he ventured to say nothing was more contrary to equity and justice than that in any country the courts should, in a hard and naked manner, refuse to recognize any right or title whatever in the tenant and cultivators of land to compensation for any description of improvement which he might have been the sole means of effecting. That was a state of the law neither compatible with wisdom nor justice. It was hardly compatible with pure humanity. Let him compare the state of things in Ireland with that of England. In England improvements were largely, constantly, and, as a general rule, effected by the capital of the landlord, yet the humane and happy state of the law, not satisfied to depend on the landlord, embodied and enforced to a very considerable extent the principle of compensation to tenants for improvements made without the consent of the landlord. ["No, no!"] He affirmed this as a matter of fact. He affirmed it from knowledge and experience. ["No, no!"] The custom, he granted, prevailed variously in different parts of the country. ["No, no!"] What said Lord Derby on this subject. He said—
"In England the right was secured not only by law, but by the custom of the country, which was
1476
equivalent to law. That right was capable of being pleaded in a court of law, and compensation was awarded for improvements made not only with the consent of the landlord, but if made without asking his leave for a single one of them. That custom, which had the force of law in England, applied to various improvements and outlays of a very limited duration. In certain parts of the country the tenant was entitled to compensation for using bone-dust as manure, though that might not produce an effect upon more than two or three crops. Nothwithstanding that, however, and even though the landlord should not have sanctioned the expenditure, he would be compellable, by the custom of the country, to make compensation. Take another case of a more exclusive character—that of drainage. In a great part of the south of England, where there were large quantities of copse wood and faggot wood, nothing was more common than to drain with that faggot wood. The tenant—even the tenant-at-will—never asked the opinion of his landlord whether he should drain a particular field—he drained it. The work might last twelve, fifteen, or twenty years; but it was not permanent, though durable. And yet, without asking leave of the landlord, the tenant being a tenant-at-will, and being ejected by his landlord, would summon him for compensation, and the custom of the country would compel him to pay the tenant. But that was neither the law nor the custom in Ireland; and he asked their Lordships to apply that by law in Ireland which by custom bad the force of law in England."—[3Hansard, lxxxi. 1140.]
That declaration was made by Lord Derby when he spoke as the organ of Sir Robert Peel's Conservative Government in 1845. He was himself distinctly aware of cases in which sums of money had been paid as compensation to tenants-at-will for improvements of land which the landlord had in no respect approved, and to which he had given no consent in any terms whatever. He referred to this in illustration of the strong contrast that existed between the state of the law in the two countries, which established, he thought, the great necessity for legislation on the subject. The noble Lord (Lord Naas) said the custom of tenant right existed in a considerable part of Ireland; but one great objection to the Bill of his right hon. Friend was that if it came into operation it would interfere with that custom. [Lord NAAS: I said I had been so informed.] But, judging as well as he could from the authority of Lord Dufferin and others, as to the custom of tenant right in Ulster, it was by no means so perfect as to constitute a desirable normal state of the relation between landlord and tenant; and it would, in his estimation, form no objection to a general measure, remedying a gross and glaring mischief if it did at the same time modify that system of tenant right which already existed in some parts

1477
of Ireland—it should rather be an additional argument in its favour. He certainly should be very glad if the noble Lord, seeing his way on this subject, should be able to produce a Bill that was likely to bring about a material improvement. There had been so many abortive attempts to deal satisfactorily with the question that every fresh attempt exciting a great deal of expectation, and its failure producing corresponding disappointment in Ireland, he should be glad if, notwithstanding the discouraging tone of the noble Lord's speech, the Councils of the Government, for it was only by the Government that the subject could be treated in a thoroughly satisfactory manner, should result in the production of a satisfactory measure. The noble Lord had failed to state any principle of a determinate character on which he intended to proceed. The principle of the Bill of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) was founded upon justice; and, in the absence of any measure being propounded by the Government, it would be the duty of the House to consider whether attention should not be solicited to a measure similar to that of his right hon. Friend, which he (Mr. Gladstone) should have been glad to see passed during the present Session. Meanwhile, his right hon. Friend reserved to himself the right of introducing a measure next Session with similar provisions and having a similar effect.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was very unwilling to enter into this debate, but it was impossible for him to remain silent after some statements which he had just heard from the right hon. Gentleman. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had endeavoured by means of rhetorical management to convey an impression as to what the noble Lord (Lord Naas) said, totally different from the fact. He confessed he was a good deal surprised at what had fallen from the late Secretary for Ireland with reference to his own Bill—showing, at all events, that the subject was not quite so simple as had been represented by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire, and winding up with the somewhat curious declaration that the question did not concern Ireland only, and the peace and contentment of the whole United Kingdom, but it also materially affected our good relations with the United States. If this was really a Bill of such grave import, involving our friendly relations with the United States, he must confess
1478
his astonishment that it should have been brought forward at a time when the discussions on Reform occupied the whole attention of Parliament, and when it was scarcely possible, even apart from the change of Government, that it could pass during this Session. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had endeavoured to fasten on the noble Lord (Lord Naas) an opinion which he certainly did not express. His noble Friend said he should be very glad to see his way to the settlement of this question, and the right hon. Gentleman tried to fasten on him the admission that he did not see his way. That might be a rhetorical mode of dealing with the subject; but it was not quite fair play. On a question of such enormous difficulty they could not expect—it would not be fair to ask—the noble Lord to give a distinct pledge to the House as to what the Government, who had only just acceded to office, would do six months hence. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill of his right hon. Friend the late Chief Secretary for Ireland was clear in principle, and supplied a fearful lack of equity and justice in Ireland; but, after all, the principle was not announced; and that was the whole question. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had, curiously enough, referred to a speech delivered by Lord Derby some twenty years ago, with reference to the custom which he said prevailed in this country, to give compensation for certain improvements without the consent of the landlord; and he endeavoured to deduce from it an analogy for which he had no sufficient authority. But the right hon. Gentleman should have remembered that all these matters had been investigated by a Committee which sat three years afterwards, and of which he (Mr. Henley) was a member. Where was the candour of the right hon. Gentleman's statement? The custom did prevail in different counties, with respect to drainage improvements and manures, but the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to apply that to the state of things in Ireland with reference to buildings. To show the disingenuousness of the statement, buildings were the chief thing for which compensation was looked for; but, in point of fact, there was no such right either by custom or law in England in regard to buildings. The agricultural tenant in England was placed on the same footing as the tradesman—he might put up a building with the consent of his landlord,

1479
and if he did he must be paid for it or he could remove it. What had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman was calculated to convey a wrong impression to the people of Ireland. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman was not a candid statement. This was a very difficult question; and he (Mr. Henley), for one, had always wished that the law on the subject should be the same in both countries. He could, not pretend now to give an opinion on the subject of this Bill, for it was some time since he had looked into it, but he could not sit still without protesting against the statements of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he repeated were very much calculated to mislead.
MR. CLIVEsaid, he would put it seriously to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, whether he could show that an action would lie against any landlord in this country for compensation for alleged unexhausted improvements—in the shape of drainage, for example. There was no doubt a custom, in certain parts of the country, that uncompensated improvements might be recovered from the incoming tenant; but was there any mode of compelling the landlord to compensate the tenant for improvements in drainage? He had a good deal of experience on the subject in three different counties in Ireland. He was a large employer of labour, and had a very numerous tenantry, and he must be allowed to say that the statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was entirely at variance with the facts. He did not believe that Lord Dufferin would have agreed to that part of this Bill which related to improvements effected without notice to the landlord. The evidence he had given on the subject was of a contrary tendency. He sincerely hoped the noble Lord would, in any measure he might introduce, avoid that part of this Bill. As to the present measure drying up the sources of sedition, that might be a good oratorical expression, but in the present instance it had no meaning whatever.
MR. SULLIVANcontended that the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland were in a most unsatisfactory condition, improvements made by the occupiers being, in many cases, confiscated by landlords. With regard to a remark of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley), he thought that the late Government were not open to the observation that they
1480
had brought in this Bill so late in the Session that it was impossible that it should pass. He would remind the House that the Bill was introduced as early as the 30th of April, and that but for the opposition offered by the noble Lord the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, a decision would certainly have been obtained on it more than a month since. The principle laid down by the noble Lord in the Amendment which he moved to the second reading was, that a tenant should not be entitled to compensation unless his landlord had consented to the improvement—a condition which would render the Bill nugatory—indeed useless. A measure, based upon such a principle, could never be accepted by the Irish people as a settlement of the question. Even Lord Derby, in 1845, suggested the application of the English agricultural customs to Ireland. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) had been charged with applying this suggestion to buildings when reference was made by Lord Derby only to drainage and similar works; but the fact was, that his right hon. Friend made no mention of buildings; he simply quoted Lord Derby's words as they stood. The Bill of the late Government did unquestionably amply secure the tenant in getting compensation for money laid out in buildings, and no Bill would be worth anything that did not do so. At present the state of things in the two countries was widely dissimilar; for, whereas in England improvements were chiefly made by the landlord, in Ireland they were generally undertaken by the tenant, and it was quite clear that even Lord Derby's opinion was in favour of entitling the tenant to compensation in all such cases. His right hon. Friend was not open to the imputation of disingenuousness preferred against him by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley). The Bill, indeed, had been opposed on the ground that if it passed landlords would compel their tenants to bind themselves not to exercise the right it gave them; but if the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland were in such a condition as that objection implied, then he must say that the sooner Irish farmers gave up their occupation and betook themselves to another country the better. He was convinced that, though the Bill was about to be withdrawn, its principle would sooner or later be adopted by Parliament.
SIR FREDERICK HEYGATE,as the representative of a district where tenant

1481
right was the custom of the country, said, he could not be regarded as antagonistic to the extension of that system to the rest of Ireland. There was a great difference, however, between Lord Derby's Bill of 1845 and the present measure, for in the former notice of an intention to carry out improvements was required, Commissioners were deputed to inquire into their propriety, and the landlord had the opportunity of objecting. Lord Derby's Bill, therefore, practically required the consent of the landlord to the improvements. In the Bill brought in by the late Government, and now about to be withdrawn, the consent of the landlord was dispensed with altogether. The passage which had been quoted from Lord Derby's speech in 1845 mentioned the variety of customs prevailing in different parts of this country, as an English landlord had no knowledge of the description of compensation which had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone). In the county in which he resided, compensation was given to the outgoing tenant merely for seeds sown, manure put in, and the general state of the land. The noble Lord was quite right in declining to pledge himself to deal with so complicated a question. In the North, the tenant possessed a kind of goodwill in the farm, which acted beneficially to all parties, and he already occupied a better position than that in which the Bill would place him, and would view with jealousy any attempt to fix his relations with his landlord by statute. He supposed the Bill had been brought in with some idea of stopping the emigration from Ireland. He deplored the emigration which was going on, but it could not be arrested by measures of this character, for wages were rising in every other country, and it was not to be supposed that the holder of a small farm would remain in a state of semi-starvation in his native land when brighter prospects invited him across the sea. Indeed, the ratio of emigration from the North, notwithstanding the existence of a form of tenant right, was last year greater than ever, and small holdings were gradually being converted into large ones. The hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), in a previous debate, had justified this Bill upon the ground that the circumstances of Ireland were very extraordinary. He also said that the rent demanded in Ireland was a great deal higher than that paid in England; but he seemed to forget that the Irish acre was
1482
larger than the English acre; and, perhaps, he did not bear in mind that in Ireland the landlord paid half the poor rates. He also said that the condition of the Irish farmers was so miserable that it was necessary there should be exceptional legislation for them. He (Sir Frederick Heygate) had been over a great part or the country, and was speaking from his own experience; and he believed that, except where the holdings were exceedingly small, the occupiers, as a rule, were well off and contented, as was proved, indeed, by the fact that there was hardly an instance of a tenant farmer having taken part in the Fenian movement. The true remedy for emigration consisted in the extension of trade and commerce, which was steadily going on; and he objected to the Bill as infringing the rights of property, and as antagonistic to those laws of supply and demand which could alone regulate the populousness and prosperity of a country. He was very glad that this Bill was to be withdrawn.
MR. BRADYobserved, that since the operation of the Incumbered Estates Act, the land sold under it had been surveyed, and also let, according to the measurement of the statute acre, and therefore the correction of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Stuart Mill) was uncalled for.
MR. J. STUART MILLexplained, that he had made no comparison of the value of land per acre in England and Ireland. Either, therefore, he must have ill expressed himself, or the hon. Baronet must have attributed to him remarks made by some other Member.
MR. BRADYsaid, he thought that the discussion which had taken place upon the withdrawal of the Bill of the late Secretary for Ireland would be received in that country with feelings of the deepest regret. The agricultural interest in Ireland would view that withdrawal as the death-knell of their hopes; especially when they received the accompanying information that the noble Lord the present Chief Secretary for Ireland had declared that he did not intend to bring forward any measure on this important subject next year. [Lord NAAS: I never said anything of the kind.] The noble Lord certainly stated that he was not prepared to say he would bring forward any measure on this subject in the next Session—that if he thought he could frame a measure that would meet with the approbation of the House generally, he should be willing to undertake the

1483
task; but, feeling such a result to be almost hopeless, he declined to give any pledge on the subject. Every Englishman who visited Ireland must admit that the state of that conntry was not to be paralleled by any other civilized nation on the face of the earth. He (Mr. Brady) was surprised that the unfortunate tenantry could pay even their present rents. The land was badly cultivated, and did not produce one-half that it could be made to do. The cause of all this was the insecurity of the tenure in that unhappy and misgoverned country. He had been informed lately, by a man of undoubted veracity, of the following facts:—The individual in question was the holder of a small farm of twenty-five acres, having received it from his father, who had been fifty years in possession. Immediately on the death of his father, the son set to work to improve the land, and having laid out the little money he was possessed of in effecting that object, he thought he was all right, but not so; for in less than three years his rent was raised 5s. an acre; and, within comparatively short periods of time, he subsequently received three other notices, each one informing him of a further rise of rent, and all in consequence of the valuable improvements which he had made by his own labour and money, wholly independently of the landlord. Now he (Mr. Brady) believed that to be a very general practice in Ireland. Surely such a state of things would not be tolerated in this or any other country; and he hoped that the present Government would see the necessity, on the grounds of justice as well as of common humanity, of directing their attention to the unsatisfactory state of the relations between the landlords and tenants in Ireland, with the view of proposing a remedy for this evil, which, so long as it existed, would be the fruitful source of misery, discontent, and disaffection in the sister country.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he did not understand it to be the opinion of the late Government that to give tenants compensation for improvements made without the consent of the landlord was calculated to remove any existing evil, or to improve the agriculture of the country, or that the Bill would do more than exhibit to the world that Parliament was acting from fear of those who had taken up the question of tenant right as nothing more than a professional agitation. Political exigencies apparently induced the late Govern-
1484
ment to bring forward the Bill, but he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had thought fit to speak in its favour. It was true, indeed, that he sheltered himself under the authority of Lord Derby, by quoting the opinion of that noble Lord, and that he seemed to guard himself against expressing concurrence in it. He attributed the different customs which prevailed in this matter to the difference of circumstances; for a custom was the embodiment of the interests of the particular locality where it existed, and, instead of regulating the relations of landlord and tenant by Acts of Parliament, the wisest policy was to allow customs to spring up spontaneously, adapted to the wants of each district. He hoped that many Members on the other side of the House would sacrifice party obligations, and would co-operate with him in opposing measures of this kind, to which the Liberal party had mistakenly committed themselves; and he contended that, even if such a Bill passed, it would be inoperative, for Irish occupiers did not possess the capital necessary to enable them to take advantage of it. This measure had been taken up by the Roman Catholic priesthood as being a most efficient means of agitation.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to offer some observations in respect to the customs regarding landlord and tenant supposed to prevail in England and Ireland. In 1848, after communicating with Lord Derby, he had moved for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the customs regarding the tenure of land, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) was a Member of the Committee. The question of custom having been again raised in the course of this debate, and having ascertained that there was a great demand for the evidence taken before the Committee he had referred to, he (Mr. Newdegate) should certainly take an opportunity of moving that that evidence be re-printed. So far from anything like an uniform custom prevailing throughout England, hon. Members would find that the custom in England varied in almost every county, but the characteristic of English agricultural customs was this—that they had all originated in contracts between landlord and tenant. It was proposed to legislate upon this subject for Ireland. No analogy would be drawn between the customs in England and the legislation now proposed for Ireland. He was in a condition to state

1485
that so far from the people of this country departing from the system of contract, with a view to the enlargement of the custom, the disposition of the tenantry now was to revert to the practice of direct and specific written contracts of agreement with their landlords, instead of relying upon custom. In respect to what were called "emblements," an Act was passed in 1860, which placed the agricultural tenant in the same position as a trading tenant. By that Act the tenant might erect a building if he pleased, and might remove it before the expiration of his term, or of his lease; but any claim for compensation respecting it must depend upon his agreement with his landlord. He referred the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) to that Act, to the Report of, and to the evidence taken before, the Committee of 1848, which would show what the law and custom of England and Wales were in respect to land tenure.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would take advantage of a few minutes left him to say a word or two in reference to a subject which was admitted to be of the very greatest importance to the Irish people. Now, so far from the measure proposed by the late Government being a wild or revolutionary scheme for handing over the property of the country from one class to another class, it was, in his opinion, one of the most moderate and the most Conservative measures that could be conceived. He would not attempt to enter into its details, for the time would not admit of such analysis; but he would simply state that its main scope and object was to facilitate the making of contracts between landlord and tenant, and to bring about, by inducement rather than to enforce by compulsion, the granting of leases to the tenantry of Ireland. What was required above all things in that country was the protection of a lease, inasmuch as it was admitted on all hands that the vast body of the Irish tenants held their land by the worst because the most precarious of all tenures—tenancies at will; and the main object of the measure was to induce landlords to grant such leases as would of themselves afford a fair protection to the industry of the tenant. Surely, that was not a wild or revolutionary proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Henley) represented the Bill as if it proposed that the tenant could raise all manner of costly buildings in opposi-
1486
tion to the desire of his landlord, and then insist on compensation. That was not the intention of the Bill. The Irish Members who had taken an active part in promoting the question, and bringing it to its present stage, were not unwilling that buildings of an important character should be made the subject of special agreement between landlord and tenant; but as to ordinary improvements, including drainage, which was most required in a humid clime, the object of the Bill was to enable the tenant to make them without let or hindrance—to place no restriction whatever in his way. If, however, such improvements were not proved to be of such a nature as to increase the yearly value of the land, no claim for compensation could arise. The object was to unloose the energies of the Irish farmer by offering him every possible inducement to exertion. And what would be the necessary result of a system of freedom and protection such as the Bill sought to establish? No benefit alone to the tenant, but to the owner, the estate, the community, and the country. And this was the revolutionary scheme which aroused the fierce opposition of the party opposite! Why, instead of aiming a deadly blow at the whole measure, did not the noble Lord (Lord Naas) allow it to go into Committee, in which he could have proposed what he believed to be necessary precautions against any attempt at the confiscation of landlord property? Why did he not rather seek to improve than to destroy the Bill of the late Government? The measure was brought in quite early enough for the purposes of legislation; but the noble Lord and his Friends sought the destruction of the measure not only out of hostility to its liberal concessions and justice, but in their desire to embarrass the Government. That was not statesmanship. The speech delivered by his right hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) was in the highest degree creditable to his good feeling and good sense. There was not a word in it that would not be endorsed by every man who knew anything of the real state of Ireland, or who was not blinded by class prejudices. It was idle to pretend that the disaffection which existed in Ireland was not traceable to local causes; and of all the causes which led to a sense of insecurity, to a feeling of discontent, and to periodical outbursts of disaffection, the state of the relations between tenant and landlord was the most marked

1487
and the most active. When the right time came, which it would probably do before the Session was over, he would be able to prove that one of the wisest measures which any Government could pass was one for the security of the tenant—for giving him that interest in the soil which would compel him to defend the peace of the country against every attempt to disturb it. A good land Bill would be a measure of the wisest and soundest policy, Conservative alike in its character, and objects, and in its results. The question could not remain where it then was. It should be settled, and that speedily. If, to use the cant of the day, disaffection was to be "stamped out," it could be only by passing laws which would content and satisfy the people; but until a policy of justice and conciliation was established, it would be impossible to bring about real tranquillity or real happiness in the country—in a country, the state of which was discreditable to England, to which for sixty-six years it had been surrendered, and by which it had been ruled with complete and almost irresponsible authority. What were the present Government about to do? Let them have the courage to deal boldly with this fundamental question. Vague assurances would not suffice. A distinct policy was what would alone suit the occasion, and meet the emergency of the moment. Before the Session closed the Government should make up their minds as to the course they were determined to take; and instead of indulging in phrases which might be interpreted differently at both sides of the House, and which Would bewilder the people of Ireland, they should speak out in language clear, simple, and easy of being understood. The late Government had a policy, and the Bill now about to be withdrawn through no fault of theirs was an illustration of that policy of wisdom and conciliation; and if the present Government desired to hold office, and hold it with honour, they should legislate in that spirit, and in no other.
MR. ACLANDsaid, he should be extremely sorry that the Government would have their difficulties increased by its going to the world that there was a law prevailing in England which they were unwilling to extend to Ireland. The general law of England and Ireland in this respect was the same—namely, that the freehold of the land belonged to the landlord, and in the absence of any special arrangement, either from the peculiar cir-
1488
cumstances of the contract or from custom, that the improvement of the land at the expiration of the tenancy belonged to the landlord. Mr. Pusey's anxiety always was that English tenants ought to be put into a better position in order that English agriculture might prosper. In dealing with this question for Ireland, it would be well to consider how far the circumstances of England and those of Ireland were the same, and whether it was practicable to apply the general principle of the English law to the present state of circumstances in Ireland. The object of this Bill was to facilitate and encourage the formation of contracts between those on the spot who knew their own circumstances and how to deal with them. On that ground he should have been disposed to support the Bill. Ireland could not claim any advantage on the English law which the latter did not possess.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) had treated the noble Lord opposite with perfect fairness. The right hon. Gentleman said that the noble Lord had not laid down any principles upon which the question should be dealt with; while in real truth the noble Lord had stated most distinctly that the tenant ought to be secured compensation for the improvements, due regard, of course, being had to the rights of the landlord. As an English landlord, he had been much surprised at what the right hon. Gentleman had stated upon the supposed authority of Earl Derby. But the words used by Earl Derby did not bear the interpretation put upon them by the right hon. Gentleman. The question really was whether the Irish tenant was to be entitled to compensation for improvements made either with or without the consent of his landlord. He should strongly oppose the passing of a measure introducing such a principle into England; there were, however, exceptional circumstances in Ireland which might render it beneficial to give the tenant a power of making improvements in defiance of the opposition of his landlord. He thought that the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth met this necessity very fairly, and he regretted that it could not become law during the present Session. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire had acted unfairly towards the noble Lord opposite when he endeavoured.

1489
to fix him with opinions which it was well-known were most unpopular in Ireland. He must, however, press upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity for dealing with this question themselves, and dealing with it immediately, for if they declined to do so they would raise great distrust in Ireland, and Irish Members would feel compelled to oppose them. The people of Ireland expected that this question should be settled, and settled it must be. Her Majesty's Government should not defer the matter until next Session, but should in the course of the present Session, if not lay a Bill relating to the subject upon the table, at all events lay down some practical principle upon which the matter should be dealt with.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the principle of the measure was simply that in the event of the parties not entering into a specific contract the tenant should be entitled to compensation for the improvements he had made upon the property.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHcalled attention to the flagrant misrepresentation which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire with reference to what fell from Earl Derby in 1845 on this subject. Hon. Members frequently made statements in that House, and when they expected to be answered they were in the habit of leaving their seats. The right hon. Gentleman had followed that example in the present instance. All he would say was that the right hon. Gentleman had entirely misrepresented the real meaning of Earl Derby.
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill withdrawn.

FORTIFICATIONS AND WORKS BILL.
Resolutions reported;
1. "That, towards providing a further sum for defraying the Expenses of the construction of Works for the Defence of the Royal Dockyards and Arsenals, and of the Ports of Dover and Portland, a sum, not exceeding £350,000, be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom; and that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized and empowered to raise the said sum by Annuities, for such a term not exceeding thirty years; and that such Annuities shall be charged upon and be payable out of the said Consolidated Fund."
2. "That the said Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized to direct the
1490
payment to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, out of the said Consolidated Fund, of the sum of £300, for the management of the Contributions to be received by the said Governor and Company in respect of the said Annuities."
Resolutions agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, General PEEL, and Mr. HUNT.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 244.]

OYSTERS CULTIVATION (IRELAND) BILL.
On Motion of Lord NAAS, Bill further to promote the Cultivation of Oysters, and to amend the Acts for that purpose, ordered to be brought in by Lord NAAS and Mr. HUNT.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 243.]
House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.