make the measure a complete farce, and were that course to be taken, he (Mr. Duffy) would infinitely prefer that the landlord and tenant question should be left as it was; and if the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny should further eurtail his Bill, he (Mr. Duffy) would decline to vote, pro or con, on the question.

between their promises to their constitu- | ple that he (Mr. Duffy) was resolved that ents and their allegiance to the Govern- his support of it should depend upon the ment. There was another element still fact that the Government would make it a more important. The noble Lord (Vis- Cabinet measure, and carry it through this count Palmerston) found, when forming Session, and that no legerdemain should his Government, that it was desirable to be again practised by which the measure take into it certain Members representing would pass from their sight as if it had the Irish constituencies. He accordingly vanished through a trap-door never to be appointed to office the two hon. and learn- seen afterwards. He was sorry to see an ed Gentlemen opposite-the Attorney and hon. and learned English Member make Solicitor Generals for Ireland--and subse- | himself the advocate in that House of a quently gave the office of Under Secretary party opposed to any reform on this quesfor the Colonies to the hon. Member for tion, because, if he had the selection of a the county of Carlow (Mr. J. Ball.) The jury before whom he would desire to rehon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. present the case of the Irish tenants with J. D. FitzGerald) was one of a party of the certainty of a favourable verdict, it Irish Members, amounting to forty and would be composed of an assembly of upwards, who assembled together in Dub- English landlords who did, without eomlin, and came to a resolution to refuse pulsion, what they sought to make the their support, and to stand in opposition Irish landlords do by law. There were to any Government who did not make a millions of Irish people in that country, Landlord and Tenant Bill, on the basis and there was not one of them who would proposed by Sharman Crawford, a Cabinet not prefer living in Ireland if the country measure. Now, he (Mr. Duffy) wanted to were made fit to live in. The adoption of know from the hon. and learned Solicitor the alteration which the right hon. GentleGeneral for Ireland, if he were now pre-man (Mr. Horsman) had proposed would pared to endorse the statement of his right hon. colleague the Chief Secretary, or was he prepared to throw up his office. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies stood in the same position; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Keogh) did not simply stand in that position. The right hon. and learned Gentle- MR. H. HERBERT said, he would only man, on the most public occasions, made a trouble the House with a few observations declaration, and sealed it with a solemn at that late hour-eleven o'clock. He oath, that he would support no Govern- thought that, if any hon. Gentleman trament who did not make a Landlord and Te-velled in Ireland, he would come to only nant Bill, on the basis of Sharman Craw-one conclusion, that there was something ford's Bill, a Cabinet measure. He wanted wrong in the system of tenure. Whether to know from the right hon. and learned this was the fault of landlords or tenants Gentleman, therefore, if he were content he would not say, but any one who comwith the limitation now proposed, or whe-pared the cultivation of the land in that ther he was going to dissolve his connec- country with other countries, at all events, tion with a Government who declined to would say somebody was to blame. He make a Landlord and Tenant Bill, on the thought blame attached to both parties basis of Sharman Crawford's Bill, a Cabi--both landlords and tenants. But he net measure. If those hon. and learned Gentlemen had come to the conclusion that those pledges were to mean nothing, they would find it very difficult to maintain before an Irish audience, or before those who were witnesses of the undertaking, that character which it would be satisfactory for the Members of that House to maintain. The measure submitted to the House by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) fell so far short of the wishes of the Irish peo

thought it would best serve the cause of the latter by not endeavouring to recriminate either on the one side or the other. No doubt faults existed on both sides, in many instances, and it was now desirable that some fair and equitable decision should be come to. On looking at the Bill, he asked himself whether it was calculated to settle the question at issue, and he came to the conclusion that it would not be anything like a boon to landlords or tenants as described by hon. Members.

With regard to the north of Ireland-a | tion of the principle of all covenants. The part of the country where considerable purchasers under the Encumbered Estates improvements had been made by small Act had hitherto held their land, as they farmers at their own expense-he thought the Bill would scarcely affect it; for neither this Bill nor any other Bill would be received as a substitute for that which tenants there already possessed. It was also absurd to think that it would be of any great practical benefit to the small farmer in the south of Ireland, and with regard to the class of large farmers in the south, he had no hesitation in saying that an eligible tenant ought to get from a landlord infinitely more favourable terms than this Bill would give him. He should, however, support the Bill; for the latter portion of it contained most valuable powers for making and carrying out voluntary arrangements. If any Irish tenant came to him and asked him if he would be justified, in prudence, in laying out his capital on the improvements mentioned in the schedule of this Bill, he would recommend him to go to his landlord, and make the best arrangements he could under the latter clauses of the Bill; but he would add, also, that he should think he was a foolish man to lay out his capital on those things at all, because the landlord ought to do it. He saw a daily tendency in Ireland to a better state of things. The landlords were beginning to see that it was their interest as well as their duty to make these improvements on their estates, and he believed any tenant who laid out his capital on that species of improvement would be doing an imprudent thing. Reserving to himself the right of supporting any alteration he should deem desirable in Committee, he was, on the whole, disposed to give his hearty support to the second reading of the Bill in the hope that the question would be satisfactorily settled this Session.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON said, he sincerely regretted that the Government should have permitted one of its members -the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for England-to embarrass the whole question by propounding a doctrine which he would not able to repeat in any Court in Westminster Hall without subjecting himself to a castigation that he would never forget. The House was considering a Bill the object of which was to settle a great social question, by giving strength to covenants between different free agents, and the doctrine laid down by the Solicitor General went to the destruc

thought securely, under a Parliamentary
title, but by the doctrine of the hon. and
learned Solicitor General, they were now
told that a Parliamentary title meant no-
thing. He would not further allude to the
hon. and learned Gentleman's monstrous
proposition, but he trusted the noble Lord
at the head of the Government would not
again allow the subordinates of his admin-
istration to render difficult the settlement
of important questions. The other night
he had come down prepared to vote for the
Government proposition relative to copy-
right, but the Solicitor General, after
making a speech in its favour, gave up the
clause in the last sentence of his speech.
He would recommend the right hon. Gen-
tleman the Secretary for Ireland on any
future occasion not to go back into history,
not to remind the people of Ireland how
they used to live in discord, but to address
himself to the present more cheering aspect
of a united and friendly people, and bury
the past in oblivion. He would beseech
the right hon. Gentleman not to resuscitate
the past evils and discords of Ireland in
his future speeches, but to look to Ireland
as it happily now was. It surely could
not be the right hon. Gentleman's ambi-
tion to bring back and perpetuate the so-
cial state which he had deplored.
hoped the House would allow the Bill to
be read a second time without division.
No one had yet moved an Amendment
to this Bill, and he would remind the
House that this was the third Session in
which the question had been brought before
Parliament, and that almost all the clauses
had received the sanction of the House on
former occasions. Public attention in Ire-
land had been roused. The people looked
to that House for a settlement of this sub-
ject, and he hoped that the House would
not, by rejecting the second reading, render
it impossible for any legislation to take
place this year. The people of Ireland
who were waiting anxiously for the result
of this debate, at present put confidence
in the House. But if they found that Par-
liament refused to entertain this subject in
a spirit of justice, the time might come.
when their patience would be exhausted,
and the solution of this question would be
rendered tenfold more difficult than it was
at the present time. The Amendments
which had been suggested in the Bill by
the Government removed the objections

Не

that might be taken to many of its pro- | fore, I have nothing to add to the statevisions, and, therefore, hoping that the ment which he has made. I differ from measure would be allowed to pass through those who urge that this is not a proper its present stage without a division, he should yet reserve to himself the full right in Committee of recommending such alterations in the details as he might think

necessary.

SIR JOHN FITZGERALD said, he considered that the Bill related wholly to Ireland. In that country, when a tenant took land, he was obliged to erect farm buildings upon it at his own expense. When his lease expired there of course arose the question which was now before the House, whether or not he was to receive compensation from the landlord for those buildings which he had erected, and which he must leave on the premises. At the expiration of the lease the land was become more valuable, and no renewal of the lease would be given except at a higher rent. No law at present in existence compelled the landlord to give to the tenant the compensation to which he was entitled; and this had caused, and was causing, the most alarming emigration of the Irish agricultural population. He gave his most

hearty support to the measure.

time for settling this question; I think, on the contrary, that the present moment is one peculiarly favourable for the settlement of it. It is a question which has agitated the public mind in Ireland for many years past-which has given rise to great animosity, if I may so speak, at all events to strong differences of opinion, between different parties. The present moment is, as has been stated, one in which these differences do not run so high as they have done at former periods. It is a moment of general contentment and prosperity in Ireland; and I think that is precisely the time at which you will find the minds of men most disposed to come to a reasonable accommodation upon a question of great national and social interest. Sir, it is perfectly true that this Bill contemplates a condition of things in Ireland different from that which exists in England and in Scotland. But that dif ference arises not from the fault of landlords or of tenants. I acquit both classes of the blame of bringing about the condition of things which we are seeking to remedy. I concur entirely in what was stated by the hon. Member who has just sat down. Nay, I go further, Sir, than he did. He said there were good landlords in Ireland. I say there are better landlords there than in almost any other country, landlords who do more for their tenants than the landlords of England do, or are required to do. There are, of course, exceptions; there are those who, from their limited means, are unable to afford to their tenants the same amount of assistance that their richer neighbours afford; but I repudiate entirely the wholesale accusations which are made against the landlords of Ireland. Well, on the other hand, people reproach the tenantry VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, as of Ireland with being wanting in industry, there seems to be so general an agreement and with being improvident. That charge as to the second reading of this Bill is equally unfounded. The tenantry of ["No, no!"] I did not say the agreement Ireland, when they receive encouragement, was unanimous. But I say, as the great and have reason to believe that their exmajority of this House appear disposed to ertions will meet with a due reward, are agree to it, I do hope the House will de- as much inclined to industrious exertion as termine to pass the second reading this the tenantry of any part of the world. evening without further debate. The Sir, the evils of Ireland are to be traced course which Her Majesty's Government to the history of Ireland. What is that are prepared to take with regard to this history? Why, it is the history of civil Bill has been fully and completely ex- war; of rebellion; of confiscation; of plained by my right hon. Friend the Se- wholesale and violent transfers of land cretary for Ireland; on that point, there- from class to class; of penal laws; of the

MR. KENNEDY said, there was nothing novel in the principle of this Bill; it already existed in the tenant right of Ulster. If this Bill were bad, it would be a serious restriction on the tenant rights of that province. At present the tenant there could sell his rights for the highest sum he could get for them. As for the landlords of Ireland, there were some as good as any to be found elsewhere; but there were also middling and very indifferent landlords. This Bill appeared to be intended to bring those middling and inferior landlords into the good practices of the better class; and it would have the further effect of relieving a good landlord from the reproach of his bad neighbours.

exclusion of the largest class of the na- | hood to hear of nothing but leases of sixtytion from the ordinary privileges of social one years and two or three lives, refused existence of the domination of a small to ask those leases which in England and minority professing one religion over a Scotland are sufficient to secure improvelarge majority professing another; of laws ments. To offer them a fourteen years' which aggravated those animosities which lease, or even a twenty-one years' lease, political and social inequalities were of was to offer them what they did not think course of themselves calculated to pro-worthy of their acceptance. Well, then, duce. Well, Sir, those times are fortunately past; those animosities are, I hope, for ever extinguished, together with the differences which created them, and which have been swept away. But there still remain some effects, even though the causes have ceased to exist, and those effects belong to the condition of things which this Bill is calculated and intended to remedy. In Ireland, up to about half a century ago, from the very circumstances under which the great proprietors derived their titles, land was not held and occupied in the way that it is in England and Scotland. It was let in large bulks by the owners to persons who sub-let it to others; and, perhaps, two or three gradations interposed between the owner and the actual occupier of the soil. But what was the tenure on which the land was occupied? Land was let upon leases of preposterous length; leases, for example, of sixty-one years and three lives. Well, what was then the position of the landlord and the tenant? The landlord was a stranger on his own estate. He had no control over those who occupied the land. He did not even know them-he felt no interest in them-and they had no sympathy with, or affection for, him. In this state of things there was no person who was interested in the improvement of the estate. Why should the owner improve the land? It was taken away from him by a long lease, and no improvement he could make would produce any advantage for him. Why should the middleman improve the land? He had only a temporary tenure, and no improvement, therefore, that might be made would produce any advantage for him. Why should the occupying tenant improve the land? He had no inducement to do so, because he held at the will of the middleman. There was no party, therefore, connected with the cultivation of the land who had a strong interest in the soil. Well, then, when these long leases expired, the landlords, disgusted with the old practice, went to the other extreme; they would not give leases, or, if they were willing to give leases at all, the tenants, accustomed from their child

that generated the state of things which had hitherto prevailed, under which the landlord has done very little for the improvement of the land-I refer to the erection of buildings, and the setting up of boundary fences, contemplated in this Bill-all such things being left to the tenant. Now, so far as the prospective part of this Bill goes, nobody seems to object to its provisions; the part of it which is objected to is the retrospective clause. Well, Sir, one cannot deny that, as a general rule, it is undesirable to interfere between landlord and tenant, as it is to interfere between any other two parties in society who make bargains together. The best arrangement, undoubtedly, is in general to leave parties free to make what engagements they please; and on general principle it is, I admit, objectionable to pass a retrospective clause altering the relative position of those who have acted on a certain understanding. But, on the other hand, I think that, looking at the position of Ireland, considering that land is there frequently held at will-that tenants, in order to a due and profitable cultivation, have been obliged to make outlays which in other countries are made by the landlords, I think an exception, coupled with the conditions proposed by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Horsman), may in this case fairly and properly be made. Now let us see generally how that would work. The enactment, combined with the restrictions and conditions proposed by my right hon. Friend, would give a tenant who was turned out a claim for compensation for any visible and tangible improvement by which he had added to the letting value of the property. Why should the landlord turn him out? He would do so for one of two reasons, either because he had had a quarrel with the tenant, and wished to get rid of one who had become disagreeable to him, or because, seeing that the tenant had improved the value of the land, he thought that after ejecting him he would secure to himself the benefit of his improvements, and let the land to another person at an increased rent. The latter proceeding would be an unworthy

one, it is a proceeding to which no ho- on their farms. In voting for the second nourable landlord would resort, and to reading of the Bill, therefore, he did not which assuredly no landlord whatever consider that he was pledged to anything ought to be allowed to resort. With re- further than the affirmation of that pringard to the first cause which I have men- ciple. He could not see that the insertion tioned, even supposing the landlord had of a retrospective clause should justify the had some difference with his tenant, if rejection of the second reading. It could buildings had been raised which added not be forgotten that when his right hon. to the value of the farm, an honourable and learned Friend the Member for the man would say, "I will turn you out, but University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) introI will pay you for the buildings; though I duced a Bill having the same object in dislike you, I will not apply the capital view, it had such a retrospective clause, which you have invested to my own pro- and yet that Bill passed a second reading. fit." I think, therefore, that, accompa- If in the one case the House agreed to a nied with the conditions to which I have second reading with such a clause, it might referred, even the retrospective clause is be said that hon. Members were equally one which this House might safely pass. bound on the other. After what had ocWell, then, if this Bill is accompanied curred-after looking at the question as it with the other Bill which on a former oc- affected landlord and tenant in Irelandcasion accompanied its progress in Par-after considering what Lord Derby had liament, I do think those Bills will go far to settle entirely those unfortunate differences which have so long agitated certain parts of Ireland. It does not appear to me that they would in any case inflict individual injury, while they would quell the angry feeling which existed in Ireland on this subject. And if these Bills should lead to the establishment of an improved relation between landlord and tenant-if they should lead to the introduction in Ireland of the system which prevails in England, under which the landlord invests his capital in his own property, and makes improvements which are estimated to increase the letting value of his farms-if the result should be to do away with preposterously long leases, and to introduce a state of things in which farms would be let for terms of moderate duration, I think a great improvement would be effected in the social condition of the country. I am, therefore, disposed not only to support the second reading of the Bill to-night, but in the event of the Amendments suggested by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland being adopted, to give my best assistance in its passage through this House, and I should hope that, with the assistance of the Government in another place, the Bill might be passed into a law during the present Session.

MR. I. BUTT said, that the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had argued as if the retrospective clause were a part of this Bill. He could not agree in that view, but thought that the principle of the Bill was that the existing law of landlord and tenant did not afford sufficient protection to tenants who might make improvements

done in 1845, and subsequently by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin-he thought it impossible to maintain that legislative interference was not required. There was no ground, then, for resisting the second reading. He was anxious, however, that his vote should not be misunderstood. In voting for the second reading he did not pledge himself with respect to the retrospective clause. After the opinions which at the last election hon. Gentlemen had expressed with regard to the settlement of this question-he had himself said he was favourable to a consideration of it—he thought that if the House were to refuse a second reading to the Bill, they would only add to the mischief which had already arisen. He was ready to go into Committee on the Bill, and if there he found that the subject could not be treated with justice he could refuse his assent to the third reading.

COLONEL DUNNE said, he considered the present Bill as far less objectionable than that brought in by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier); but he had opposed that measure at the time, and was therefore perfectly consistent in opposing the one now before the House. He had been perfectly astonished to find the right hon. and learned Gentleman bringing in a retrospective clause, after he had assured him that he never would do so. He (Colonel Dunne) thought that Lord Derby's Government, of which he had been a Member, had acted upon this question with insincerity to those who supported them, and the right hon. Member the Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Horsman) had