would take the trouble to go round Lon- ing nothing else since the Bill was first don, he would find a great deal of land introduced than yielding point after point, extremely similar to the waste lands of in order to obtain a settlement. When Ireland; and if any one liked to know why the Tenant League began their agitation, such land was uncultivated, it was simply the people of Ireland were dying by thoubecause such cultivation would be unremu-sands, while thousands more were flying to nerative. Now, he would ask why should distant lands. The Tenant League, the compensation be allowed in Ireland where it would be refused in England? Waste lands in Ireland were of various descriptions, some of which might, no doubt, be cultivated with profit. It is, however, quite a Utopian idea to think they could improve bog some thirty or forty feet deep. He happened to be the proprietor of some 1,000 acres of waste land himself, and all he could say was that he would be very happy to pay for its improvement; but that could not be done, certainly not quickly. MR. P. O'BRIEN said, that as a large section of the Irish tenantry, through their representatives, declared that it was important that the principle involved in the clause should be carried out, it was idle for hon. Members to oppose the clause on the ground that it would be inoperative. If this species of cultivation was unprofitable, it would not be undertaken; or if undertaken, there could be no claim made on the part of the tenant against the landlord, and therefore there was no necessity for the Committee striking these words out of the clause. MR. M MAHON said, that the words proposed to be left out had been objected to, because it would be difficult to ascertain how much of the waste lands had been reclaimed, but nothing could be more easy, as at the expiration of the lease the tenant would serve a notice on his landlord, who could go and see how much land had been reclaimed, and there could be nothing more natural than that the tenant should be compensated for the expenses he had incurred in reclaiming it. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had said that the contracts between landlord and tenant ought to be left free, but for a great number of years they had had a Parliament of landlords passing statutes in favour of the landlord and against the tenant, and it was now incumbent on the House of Commons, by some such attempt as the present, to endeavour to check the ill effects of that legislation. MR. DUFFY said, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government recommended the supporters of the measure to assent to a compromise; why, they had been do right hon. and learned Gentleman the At- The MR. MAGUIRE said, he would beg of the Attorney General for Ireland to give some explanation in reply to the charges which had been made against him. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Clause." The Committee divided:- Ayes 47; Noes 93: Majority 46. MR. SERJEANT SHEE said, he would now move the insertion in the same clause of the words "The main draining, or thorough draining of land, or the improvement of it by irrigation." This provision had been inserted in all the Land Improvement Bills which had been brought before the House, and he would mention the names | Dublin (Mr. Napier) in his Bill when Atof Sir Robert Kaye, Mr. Ferguson, and torney General for Ireland in Lord Derother authorities to show the necessity of by's Government. In reference to the giving every possible encouragement to drainage. COLONEL DUNNE said, he should oppose the Motion, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, the Clerk, of the Ordnance, and several other hon. Gentlemen opposite, had voted against a similar one last year. MR. POLLARD-URQUHART said, he should support the Motion, on the ground that tenants could not be expected to make improvements if some security of this kind were not given them. He believed that in many parts of England the same tenant right existed that was proposed by this amendment to be extended to Ireland, and he could see no difficulty whatever in the way of carrying it out. MR. NAPIER said, he thought they ought to act upon the recommendation of the Select Committee of which the hon. and learned Serjeant was a Member, and which, after a full consideration of the question, came to the conclusion that all improvements in the soil ought to be made the subject of express contract. SERJEANT SHEE said, he must deny that he had ever agreed to anything of the sort, though he did assent to what he could not help. It was of no avail to say, that another part of the Bill enabled compensation for drainage to be provided for by express agreements with the landlords, notwithstanding any difficulties which might be caused by the settlement of the estate. To render this operative it was necessary to have provisions in the earlier part of the Bill, such as he proposed. The only way to induce the landlords to make such agreements was to show them that, if they did not make them, the tenants would be by law empowered to improve the estates without their consent, and that, after having so improved, the tenants could not be evicted without compensation. Question put, That those words be there inserted." The Committee divided:-Ayes 49; Noes 100: Majority 51. MR. SERJEANT SHEE said, he would now beg to propose after line 5 to insert the following words, "The durable improvement of land by clearing away rocks and stones." This was a provision which was inserted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of noble Lord's (Viscount Palmerston's) observations upon what he had said, he begged to observe that he never meant to say anything disrespectful of the House of Lords. His opinion was, that a really good measure would be passed by that House. If the Government had prepared a proper measure, and had pressed it upon the attention of the House of Lords, he believed that that House would not have rejected it. MR. BRADY said, that every one who had been in Ireland must see the necessity of adopting such a provision as this. He knew from experience that the removal of stones was a great improvement to the land in many parts of Ireland. MR. FRENCH said, he fully concurred in what had fallen from both of his hon. Friends, but it was quite evident that their party had no force in that House at all equal to the majority which could be obtained at the call of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston). It was his opinion that the Government were not at all anxious to carry this Bill. While the noble Lord said he was prepared to send up the measure to the House of Lords to be there carried, he at the same time remarked that many parts of it were objectionable and inadmissible in principle. Under such circumstances, he did not think it advisable to continue to divide the Committee upon those propositions, but to rest satisfied with entering their protest against the conduct of the Government upon this sub[ject. MR. DUFFY said, he could not concur with his hon. Friend in the course he proposed. On the contrary, he thought that there was a grave responsibility upon their shoulders to use the little power they possessed in resisting to the utmost the objectionable measures of the Government. This Bill could be carried at any time if the Irish Members determined to reject the blandishments of office and to attend solely to the interests of their unfortunate country. He thought that they ought to divide. MR. MAGAN said, he was so much dissatisfied with the conduct of the Government upon this measure that he thought it would be better to move that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again. Question put, "That these words be there inserted." 2327 Tenants' Improvements {COMMONS} Compensation (Ireland) Bill. 2328 The Committee divided:-Ayes 44; | his hon. and learned Friend was that, if Noes 112: Majority 68. MR. GEORGE said, he would beg to move the insertion of words the object of which was that leases under seal or agreements in writing existing at the time of the passing of the Bill, should be respected, and that the provisions of the Bill as to prospective improvements should not come into operation in such cases until after the leases or agreements were expired, unless by mutual arrangement between the landlord and tenant. they were made during the continuance of a lease, the rights of the parties should depend on the terms of the lease. In that objection he entirely concurred, being convinced that if such a proposition as that contained in the Bill were made with respect to the rights of landlords and tenants in England, it would be scouted at once. It was repugnant to every princi ple which ought to affect the relations between those parties. MR. H. HERBERT said, the Commit tee having decided the question of compensation, the question that remained was whether that compensation should be granted when there was no contract or lease. ,pro Amendment proposed, in line 13, after the words "in respect,' to insert the words "to parties holding under leases or agreements in writing during their continuance, save in accordance with the visions thereof, or by mutual consent.' MR. HORSMAN said, the proposed Amendment was opposed to the principle of the Bill, and therefore he could not assent to it. COLONEL DUNNE said, he felt the Bill itself to be a violation of all existing contracts. The Amendment had for its object to respect existing agreements, and he should support it. MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD said, he considered the Bill, so far as the prospective clauses were concerned, to be objectionable, but it was doubly so when in a certain way it tended to take a retrospective character, and to affect contracts which the parties who had entered into them were desirous to maintain. He should support the Amendment. MR. V. SCULLY said, the Amendment, as worded, would not have the effect which its hon. Mover intended. He should oppose the Amendment, for if it were adopted they might as well get rid of the Bill altogether. MR. GEORGE said, he had considered that his Amendment applied to all contracts or leases existing at the time of the passing of the Bill; however, he would add to his Amendment words expressive of The exigencies referred to by the Amendment were provided for by a lease. MR. J. D. FITZGERALD said, he thought the Committee would not have any. The Bill gave the tenant the power of calling on the landlord to provide farm buildings, and in the event of his not doing so to provide them themselves. These buildings when erected by the tenant were in the nature of permanent improvements; and as such became valuable property to the landlord. MR. E. BALL said, the question seemed to strike at the root of obligations and at the root of good faith. He thought the Amendment was necessary, and should give it his support. MR. H. S. KEATING said, the interpretation clause, as applied to the Amend ment, gave rise to serious considerations in connection with the case of reversioners or leases for lives renewable for ever, on what the increased value of property made at this moment a merely nominal rent. It would be hard, indeed, if the reversioner, whose interest might be very small, should be compellable by the tenant to expend large sums of money upon the estate on the return of 5 per cent. MR. KEOGH said, the danger appre hended by the hon. and learned Member who had last addressed them did not exist. The 5th and 6th clauses gave the option of refusal to make the improvements in question to the landlord, and the case con templated was one in which the tenant ought to make these improvements himself. Under no circumstances would the landlord be called on to pay anything unless he resumed possession of the land; in that case it was only just and fair that he should pay for these valuable improve ments. MR. MALINS said that in reference to to the Amendment, as it was in confor an observation which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) he did not mean to contend that to give the power to a tenant to force the landlord to pay for a house he might choose to build on his land was a violation of the English constitution, but he maintained that it was a violation of the rights of property. MR. SERJEANT SHEE said, that the arrangement which the hon. and learned Gentleman denounced as a violation of the rights of property was the law in every country in the world, except in those places where, as in England, it was the custom for the landlord to erect the necessary buildings himself. It was the law in every country where the civil law was in force. This question had been argued as if it was one that lay between landlord and tenant only, whereas the real point at issue was whether it would be good for the whole people of Ireland. In the best circumstanced districts of Ireland 43 per cent of the inhabited houses were mud cabins with only one room, and the people were living like pigs. Was this a state of things that ought to continue? The object of the Bill was to preserve the rights of property, not to destroy them, and, at the same time, amend a state of things that was truly disgraceful. If they continued the present reckless system, it would be impossible to maintain the rights of property in Ireland. MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE said, the law, as laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman, did not apply to his proposition. The Roman law was that, if a person let a house, and it was not found to serve the purpose for which it was let, he must repair it; but it never could mean that, if a man let a field without a house, the person taking the field could compel him to build a house upon it. Question put "That the words, so amended, be there inserted.' The Committee divided:-Ayes 99; Noes 109; Majority 10. MR. GEORGE said, he would now move to insert after the words "like improvements," the following words :-" or in any case where a special agreement, in writing, with respect to the same, or the costs thereof, or the property therein, shall have been made by the landlord and tenant respectively, otherwise than in accordance with such special agreement." MR. HORSMAN said, he did not object mity with the Bill; but would suggest that the hon. and learned Member had better prepare a special clause at another stage. MR. GEORGE said, he would accede to the suggestion. Amendment withdrawn. MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD said, he wished to move the insertion of certain words in this clause which were rendered necessary by the previous decision of the Committee. His object was to provide in cases where tenants held under leases of lives, or for a term of years, and had been amply recompensed for the improvements they had made by a continued enjoyment of their benefit, that landlords who had been kept out of their land for a number of years should not, in addition thereto, be afterwards required to pay for such improvements. Amendment proposed, in line 18, after the word " case, to insert the words "where lands are held under or by virtue of a lease where less than the full annual value of the land is reserved, nor in any case. MR. KEOGH said, he must oppose the Amendment, which he considered to be quite unnecessary. Question put, "That those words be there inserted.' The Committee divided:-Ayes 85; Noes 110; Majority 25. COLONEL DUNNE said, he should now move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, he must oppose the Motion in the hopes that the Committee would first get through the clause then under consideration. Question put. The Committee divided:-Ayes 43; Noes 154; Majority 111. Clause, as amended, agreed to. The House resumed. Committee report progress. BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES BILL ADJOURNED DEBATE (SECOND NIGHT). Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [20th June], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." Question again proposed. MR. H. S. KEATING said, he did not wish to prevent full discussion of all the clauses of the Bill, and he trusted that the 2331 Administrative Reform {COMMONS} House would not object to Mr. Speaker MR. VANCE said, this was almost a new MR. THOMSON HÄNKEY said, this MR. I. BUTT said, he considered the MR. NAPIER said, the effect of the MR. JAMES MACGREGOR said, the MR. MALINS said, he considered the Adjourned Debate. 2332 SIR GEORGE GREY said, the propo- MB. HENLEY said, he hoped that what The House went into Committee pro The House resumed; Committee report ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM- "That this House recommends to the earliest Question again proposed. Main Question, as amended, put, and Resolved- "That this House recommends to the earlies attention of Her Majesty's Ministers the neces- The House adjourned at half after one INDEX. |