difficult question. He had only to say with regard to that, that, like some other Members of the House, he had paid a good deal of attention to the subject, and that nearly two years ago he spent some weeks in Ireland for the express and only purpose of examining into the question, and ascertaining, if possible, from intelligent persons of all classes in that country what was the truth regarding it. He had studied with more care than he ever studied other blue books the reports of the Devon Commission; and, having fortified himself by a thorough examination of the question, he formed an opinion, and endeavoured to embody that opinion in a few clauses of a Bill. This Bill was submitted to Irish Members, and by some on both sides of the House it was generally approved. However, it did not meet the views of a large class in Ireland who were moving in relation to this matter, and he thought it better that he, who was not connected with Ireland in any way, should not bring forward a measure that did not meet the approbation of the Members from Ireland, and those whom they represented. He, therefore, took no steps to submit that Bill to the House. He did not think that he should be able to support in Committee some of the clauses of the Bill of the hon. Member for Rochdale; yet he would vote for its introduction and second reading, as approving of this one proposition present Government had paltered with this question in every sense. When out of office they had excited the people of Ireland to most extravagant expectations; and in office, when it would no longer serve the purposes of their Administration, they allowed the question, which they themselves had created, to drop to the ground, and now assailed those who, upon their invitation, first became advocates of the measure. The circumstance of disturbances in Ireland had been referred to, and he could assure the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that no man bore more entire detestation to the commission of those crimes than he did, and he should most unhesitatingly assent to any steps for their repression. But he believed the law now improperly administered in Ireland would be perfectly sufficient; though he would tell the noble Lord at the head of the Government the present law and no law would be sufficient, if everything in Ireland were made a matter of party compromise. The law would be sufficient if everything were done with the view to preserve the peace of the country, and with the object of carrying out substantial measures of relief-not for particular purposes to inflame the passions of the people, or to be a means of propping up the Government, and, when it suited the purpose of the Administration, to betray and fling them away with ignominy and contempt. He would ask why the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not addressed the House on this question? When in Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman was not so sparing of his words; and he (Mr. Keogh) asked, why did he, representing an Irish constituency bordering on the district in which tenant-right did exist, now hold back, and, sitting behind the The noble Lord, among Secretary of State for the Home Depart- other things, told them that a Bill had ment, allow that duty which was his pecu- been prepared, but that persons in Ireland liar province to be discharged by another repudiated it as not satisfactory. The Member of the Government? Why did noble Lord, however, ought to know that not the Chief Secretary manfully come no class of persons whatever believed that forward and state the opinion on this sub-that Bill would have been of any service in ject which he had deliberately formed, and let the people of Ireland know what they were to expect and what they were not to expect from him on this question? that the subject was one that required legislation; and, that having adopted the principle, possibly it might be put into such a shape in Committee as would make it useful to Ireland. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had made a very ingenious and dexterous specch, endeavouring to back out of the difficulty on this question. Ireland. It was repudiated for the simple reason that the clauses of the Bill were so complex, the machinery so involved, and so many notices were to be given from one MR. BRIGHT said, he would not have person to another, that it was impossible offered a single word to the House at this to imagine a case in which the noble Lord's stage of the measure but for the observa- Bill could have been of the slightest use to tions of the hon. Member for Middlesex tenants. The noble Lord had sent his (Mr. B. Osborne), who, he was afraid, had (Mr. Bright's) Bill to the Irish Governsaid something to lead the House to sup-ment, and it was disapproved of by them. pose that he had a specific for this very He (Mr. Bright) would not condemn a Bill on that ground, though the noble Lord did. | head of the Government referred to the The noble Lord did not condemn all Bills case of farmers in Scotland, and also, he that were disapproved of by the Irish Go- believed, in England; but there was no vernment. There was one last Session on comparison to be drawn between them and which it would have been better if the the farmers of Ireland. It was proved by noble Lord had taken the advice of the the Devon Commission, that though it Irish Government. But the true state of examined 1,100 witnesses in Ireland, there the case was this: In the Cabinet there could not be got twenty-one cases in that were large Irish proprietors, and, without kingdom in which the landlord had eximputing to any proprietor a desire of pended money in farm buildings. But the doing injustice to his tenants, it was easy case was very different in Scotland. These to understand that after the long con- were facts that could not be denied by the tinuance of the present state of the law in noble Lord; and were they to have no Ireland, proprietors were alarmed at any change of the law in Ireland, because the proposition coming to them like the Bill of noble Lord said the evils that prevailed the hon. Member for Rochdale. The Irish there did not exist in Scotland? Then, proprietors in the Cabinet, in that House, when outrages took place, there were, as and out of it, were afraid of a Bill that there ought to be, denunciations of the would interfere with the powers and privi- criminals. But the truth was, that these leges that a Parliament of landowners for crimes had been the condition of Ireland generations past had been conferring upon for seventy or eighty years back, without the proprietors of the soil. That was the cessation of any long period. From the point. The question was, could the cats time when Arthur Young wrote, till the wisely and judiciously legislate for the period of the Devon Commission, and down mice? He did not believe it. He was as to the last copy of the Times newspaper, much opposed as any man could be to the same crimes had been enacted in Iretransferring the land from the landlord to land, and they sprang from the same the tenant; but a measure of justice was causes. It was in the eternal decrees of due from the former to the latter, both in Providence that so long as the population Ireland and in this country as well. After of a country were prevented the possibility the extremity to which Ireland had been of possessing any portion of their native reduced, they might have expected some soil by legal enactments and legal chicaremedial measure upon this subject; but nery, these outrages should be committed, he doubted if it was possible for the noble were they but as beacons and warnings to Lord to get his Cabinet to agree to a mea- call the Legislature to a sense of the duties sure that should withdraw from the proprie-it owed to the country which it governed. tors of Ireland or of this country the property which they asserted they had at the expiration of the tenancy in all that remained on the land, that had been placed there by the capital and industry of the tenant. As matters stood, the law directed that if a tenant expended money on buildings, or in draining, or in improvements of any kind, the improvement became the property of the landlord at the expiration of the tenancy. Now, that was not a just state of the law. He had not the slightest belief that the condition of the tenancy of Ireland could be improved by a violation of the true principles of political economy. He had never consented to a Bill that violated those principles; but the law, as it now stood, violated them most flagrantly; and, were it not that the law had been in existence so long, and that that House was composed of so many who profited by it, it would be seen by every one that such a condition of the law was unjust from the very beginning. The noble Lord at the In conclusion, should the House refuse assent to the Bill of the hon. Member for Rochdale, he had only to state that he was ready to co-operate with any of the Irish Members in bringing forward some other measure based upon the considerations he had been urging upon their attention; and if any one of them introduced such a Bill, he should feel it his duty to give it all the support of which he was capable, as he believed there was no question affecting so much as this did the true interests of Ireland. MR. WHITESIDE said, that often as he had listened to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester with pleasure, he had never done so with greater gratification than on the present occasion. The hon. Gentleman stated to the House that he had visited Ireland on one occasion for two or three weeks, and that during that time he had applied his great understanding to the condition of the law of landlord and tenant as it existed in that country; that he had mastered the entire question; all wild interference with the rights of and had discovered and overcome all the property; and therefore it was that he had difficulties of a subject which he (Mr. spoken on this occasion with a degree of Whiteside) might say for himself and his caution and care which he (Mr. Whiteside) hon. relative who sat beside him (Mr. Na- did not think on certain other questions pier) had been the object of their study for his hon. Friend was remarkable for. But a period of twenty years. But some gentle- he must deprecate his friends near him, men could come to a solution of the most and himself, being involved in the task difficult and perplexed questions by a rare that the hon. Member would cast upon intuition that did not belong to men of or- them. He asked why should not his dinary minds; and if the hon. Member for hon. relative, and himself, and other Manchester had in three weeks discovered Gentlemen unite their counsels, and make a solution for all the difficulties that beset out a Bill applicable to this question? But the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland, was that their duty? Was it the duty of why, he must embody within himself the Gentlemen who sat there; or was it a the wisdom of a Solon or a Lycurgus. compliment to the Ministers that was taWhy had the Government not availed citly conferred, as if they were unequal to themselves of the assistance of the hon. the task, to consign the performance of that Gentleman? And why did they not more task to others? He frankly admitted that frequently apply to him for aid? Since the task was a difficult one. He admitted they did not seem disposed to legislate on that the law was cumbrous, perplexed, difficult questions themselves, why could and multifarious-that both landlord and they not avail themselves of the legislative tenant were embarrassed by the number abilities of the hon. Member for Manches- and variety of the Acts of Parliament ter? He said that cats could not legislate that existed on the question. But it for mice, which was a just and beautiful was not true that they had not endearemark. The hon. Gentleman said, "Irish landlords, in the mass, were unjust and tyrannical to their tenants." He (Mr. Whiteside) represented a portion of the north of Ireland where tenant-right prevailed, and he repelled the calumny; he said, on the contrary, they were just and merciful, and the tenantry who lived under them found them better friends and were treated more kindly than they could be even if they had the good fortune of living under the government of those who held the opinions of the hon. Member for Manchester. He had heard the speech of the hon. Member for Cork with great satisfaction; and he must say, with regard to the law of distress, that it was mischievous to the tenant, and injurious to the landlord. He could say this from practical experience, as he had conducted cases of the landlord against the tenant, and of the tenant against the landlord in relation to distresses for rent. The present state of the law was wrong, and required to be redressed, and he, for one, was ready to devote his humble efforts to make it just and equitable. With reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. B. Osborne), he had said much with which he agreed; and the hon. Gentleman had a right to speak confidently on this question as he could vouch for it that he was a good Irish landlord and a good farmer; therefore it was that he deprecated Where were the voured to correct these manifest and to copyholds; and if any improvement were made in the law with regard to Ireland, he thought it ought to be extended to England. It was the duty of all who wished well to their country to meet together and to agree upon that which would conduce to the general benefit. Let them imitate the course of the Members for Scotland, who met together, and by each conceding something, had contrived to get through their public business with much profit to their country. He should give his best attention to the Bill, although he had no great hope of its success. the noble Lord declared that the good and improvements on his holding, his reward sensible Bill which he said the Government was, that, at the end of his lease, an addihad prepared had been cast aside, lest it tional fine was laid upon him on the reshould have been objected to, and have dis-newal of his lease. So it was with regard appointed unreasonable men, who would never be satisfied with any Bill whatever. That was not a statesmanlike view of the case, and ought not to prevent Ministers from dealing with this subject. He would have thought that the noble Lord would have had such just confidence in his own abilities, and the wisdom of the measures that he might have introduced, that he would have persevered till he had added to the laurels he had already gained, instead of bringing before them mere speculative reforms. But he feared that they would spend the Session as they spent the last, in debates on profitless subjects; while those MR. LENNARD said, he objected of real practical importance would not be strongly to the Bill proposed by the hon. brought forward by Government till per- Member for Rochdale; and he thought the haps some future Session, if they were hon. and learned Member for Athlone had then in office, when important questions not put the question fairly, when he asked might be settled; and then, and not till whether a tenant ought not to be compenthen, they might see the luminous mea- sated for improvements made by him. He sure which the hon. Member for Man- (Mr. Lennard) admitted that, if the imchester had hinted at recorded in the Sta-provements were made under the eye and tute-book as a fresh proof of legislative wisdom and patriotism. with the consent of the landlord, the tenant would be entitled to compensation. In MR. AGLIONBY thought the debate England this state of things is provided for was verging very closely upon party and by previous arrangement; but by the prepersonal attacks, and that the speech of sent Bill the landlord was to make comthe hon. and learned Member for Athlone pensation, whether the alterations had been (Mr. Keogh) was not so much directed to made with his consent or not. He conthe elucidation of this great question as sidered this a great injustice—a great ento a party fight; nor had the noble Lord croachment on the rights of property, (Lord John Russell) by his speech at all almost amounting to confiscation. taking cleared up the difficulty which surrounded away all discretion from the landlord, and the question. There seemed some fatality fixing him with a responsibility against his in their endeavours to improve Ireland, will. He wished the Government had obsince it invariably elicited such warm feel-jected to the introduction of the Bill, even ing; and though the hon. and learned Mem- for discussion; but as it had not done so, ber for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) said it all he could do would be to protest against was not his duty or the duty of his hon.it at the present time. relative to frame this Bill, he must tell him and all the Irish Members that it was the duty of all well-wishers of their country to lay aside all party feelings upon questions immediately affecting the interests of their constituents. He believed, with the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that legislation would do little to create confidence between landlord and tenant-that that must be the consequence of a good feeling between the different parties. In England we are subjected to the same laws that existed in Ireland, yet there was no complaint on the subject. A tenant living upon church lands could only take a lease for seven years; and if he made any Leave given. Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sharman Crawford, Mr. Keogh, and Mr. M'Cullagh. RAILWAYS (IRELAND). MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGH moved for leave to bring in a Bill, to enable Grand Juries in Ireland to make Presentments in aid of Railways, in certain cases. He felt it was not necessary to trespass, at any length, upon the time of the House, in advocating the introduction of this measure, for, if he had been at all successful in sounding the intentions of hon. Members, there was no probability of the Bill being road arrangement, and proposed that payment should be extended over ten years or twenty years, between which periods he would leave the House to decide. In this way he hoped to give a great stimulus to a branch of industry which was closely connected with the prosperity of the country. He did not seek to bind those who assented to the first reading, or the Government, in any way to the details of his measure; and with that understanding he trusted the House would permit the Bill to be printed and submitted to the Grand Juries of Ireland, which would shortly be assembled. When their opinion was taken, he should propose the second reading; it would be time enough then to discuss the details, and if any of them were objected to he would not oppose the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee upstairs. The reason he had taken upon himself to introduce this Bill was, first, because he found the Government had no intention of laying any such measure before Parliament; secondly, because he represented a community particularly interested in the passing of some such law; and, lastly, not being connected in a pecuniary way with any railroad in Ireland, he thought himself quite free to take the course he had adopted. opposed at this stage. It would be in the recollection of the House, that, at the close of last Session, a numerous deputation received from the noble Lord at the head of the Government an assurance that he had no objection, provided a general opinion should be expressed in favour of such a measure, to raise the question in Parliament of the propriety of giving to Grand Juries a power to make presentments in aid of railways under certain conditions. Acts of Parliament had been obtained for the construction of a great number of short lines of railway, but the rail fever having passed away, there was no likelihood of any of them being made at present; and without stimulus of some kind being given them, it was hard to say if ever they would be completed. A general opinion prevailed in Ireland that the localities and towns which were likely to be benefited by those lines ought to bear the expense of their completion, and that the proper way to effect this was by giving Grand Juries a power to make presentments. He proposed, therefore, to lay be fore the House a scheme by which this should be permitted, fixing the maximum which should be placed upon any district, or county, or borough, through which the proposed lines were to run; and with a power to levy a rate, to give the company the power to assign that rate to MR. LABOUCHERE said, he did not persons who would advance the sum re- rise to make any objection to the Motion; quired. He sought by this means to ob- on the contrary, he was glad that this tain in the market the use of money with- measure should be placed before Parliaout resorting to the Government; and he ment and the public in Ireland, the princimentioned this, in order that English Gen- ple embodied in the Bill having received tlemen in that House might not think it so general an assent in the course of last was a Bill to obtain money from the Im- Session. As his hon. Friend had just perial Exchequer. Every Irish Gentleman stated, the principle of the Bill was would have in his mind the system under brought under the attention of the Governwhich the old post roads were completed ment at the close of last Session, by a in Ireland, and he had sought to appro- deputation composed of various parties, priate in his measure as much of the when his noble Friend at the head of the principle of that plan as was fairly ap- Government expressed his willingness to plicable to the present railroad system. agree to such a measure, provided there He proposed that, before any rate was was a general assent to its principle on the made, the company should have estimates part of the people of Ireland. Since that prepared, which should be certified by the time the Government had not received any Board of Works to be reasonable and cor- assurance from any of the Grand Juries rect; and he did not propose that the of Ireland that they were anxious for such Board of Works should have anything a measure. Had they received any such more to do with the transaction. When assurance, they were so convinced of the such estimates and certificates were lodged importance of extending the railway syswith the town-clerk, or any other official tem in Ireland, as conferring great benefit that might be agreed upon, the Grand Jury on the country, that they would have might present for the whole sum; but, in- brought the subject before the House. stead of making the county liable for the But they had not hitherto received any whole at once, he had adopted the old post-such assurance as would induce or justify SIR JOHN YOUNG seconded the Mo tion. |