The Duke of Newcastle seconded the proposition of Lord Harrowby, and vindicated in an able speech the policy of the late Sir Robert Peel.

Lords Clanricarde, Beaumont, and Radnor, then withdrew their respective motions, and the original

resolution, as amended by Lord Harrowby, was unanimously carried.

This closed the discussions on free trade, which had for so many years proved the subject of controversy in Parliament.

THE difficult and much contro

Tverted question of land tenure in Ireland was brought about this time under the attention of the House of Commons. Mr. Napier, the Attorney-General for Ireland, moved, on the 22nd of November, for leave to introduce four Bills for the settlement of this subject, the provisions of which he explained.

The adjustment of this question he said was the great enterprise for Ireland, not merely with reference to present exigencies, but to the past. Many of the evils of Ireland arose from the old system of giving land to absentees, and of prohibiting commerce; causes which compelled Ireland to become an agricultural country. Mr. Sharman Crawford's perseverance had forced attention to the necessity of improving the law. Mr. Napier briefly enumerated legislative efforts since 1819; including Committees, from that of 1819 to the Devon Commission of 1843. He had seriously considered the facts furnished by these means, and endeavoured to apply remedies to the evils.

The first thing that struck him

was the possibility of enabling owners to improve their estates by giving facilities for the employment of capital. Basing his first measure on the Montgomery Act and Sir Robert Peel's Drainage Acts, he proposed to improve their provisions, mainly by extending them. The first Bill would provide for the registration of improvements, not only in town-lands but in mountain pastures; would arrange that money expended in improvements should be payable in 22 yearly instalments; that this money might be obtained from the Bank of Ireland or private sources, and should constitute a first charge on the land.

The second Bill referred to leasing. There were no fewer than 60 statutes giving special powers to persons and corporations to let land, for special objects and varying periods; and they were based on this principle, that a person having a limited interest in an estate should have the power of disposing of that interest. Mr. Napier specified certain parties who should be entitled to grant leases, and whose power should be regulated, not according to the nature of their

connection with the land, but according to the objects for which the land was let. Thus, land let for agricultural purposes should have a lease of 31 years; waste land let for the purpose of improvement should have a lease of 61 years; for mines, 41 years: for building purposes, 99 years; and for buildings for public institutions, 999 years. Clauses would be proposed applicable to these different leases, so as to save the expense of conveyances: among them was one enabling parties to set the rent of a farm according to the price of produce; another giving validity to a lease made by a single tenant; another fixing periods during which compensation for unexhausted improvements, made by specific agreement, might be obtained. Power was given to set off exhaustion of land by bad husbandry against real improve ments; and the case of mortgagors was provided for.

The third Bill had reference to the making and enforcing of contracts, accompanied by a model contract. There would be a provision for an open registry, which he hoped would be self-supporting. A landlord might restrain waste and burning by an order from the nearest magistrate; and the tenant would be allowed an appeal in the law-courts. Receipts for rent must specify the day on which the last gale was paid, as the rent would be taken from that day.

As to the law of distress, he proposed that no distress shall be levied for more than a year and a half's rent from the date of the warrant, and that affidavit should be made that not less than 5l. was due. Forms of ejectment were simplified; and provisions were made respecting deserted tenements.

The fourth Bill was to consolidate and amend the laws relating to landlord and tenant. He should not interfere in any way with the tenant-right of Ulster, which was a varying custom, and not reducible to a fixed law. The principle of the Bill was the principle recommended by the Devon Commission

it enabled the tenant to make necessary improvements if the landlord did not make them; but if he did, that would prevent the tenant from going on. The certificate for improvements would form the tenant's basis for compensation. It was provided that in no case would the tenant be in danger of being interrupted in his improvements. Retrospective improvements ought to be provided for. Mr. Napier considered that a tenant sent adrift had a right to such compensation as would cover the residue of the term during which the improvements would benefit the soil.

Mr. Conolly praised the moderation of the proposed measures, and the temper of Mr. Napier's speech. Mr. Serjeant Shee spoke in favourable terms of the first three Bills, but objected to the last as entirely inadequate. After some remarks from Mr. George, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Urquhart, and Lord Naas, leave was given to bring in the Bills.

Serjeant Shee also obtained leave, a few days afterwards, to introduce a measure of his own, relating to land tenure in Ireland. The subject again came under discussion on the 8th of December, when, Mr. Napier having moved the second reading of his Tenant's Compensation Bill,

Mr. Serjeant Shee, after paying a tribute to the labours of Mr. Sharman Crawford, and bearing testi

causes

mony to the soundness of his views, drew a picture of the social state of Ireland, presenting, as he said, a striking contrast to the condition of other parts of the empire. He examined the causes of Irish distress, which he traced to the relations between farmer, the cottier, and the landlordwhich, he contended, could be removed by legalizing in Ulster the cause of the prosperity of that province, and by extending it, in the absence of any contract, to the rest of Ireland. The uncertainty of tenure, which originated in the alienation or confiscation of a large portion of the soil by what was termed the Act of Settlement, was, he said, the source of the derangement of relations between the proprietors and the occupiers of the land, and it was acknowledged by the Devon Commission to be the great impediment to agricultural improvement. The Irish peasant was a tenant-at-will subject to a notice to quit, and liable to be evicted at any moment by his landlord; he had no encouragement to invest his money in the land, and the landlord would do nothing, and could do nothing, towards the improvement of the country. Hence the misery of the south, west, and east of Ireland, and the contrast presented in Ulster, where the articles of plantation bound the undertakers to let the land at low rents, not at will, but for lives or in fee, and when these obligations were violated, the custom grew up which was the tenant-right of Ulster, and which was almost a translation of the old civil law of plantation, recognized in every State of Europe that had adopted the Roman law. This tenant-right in the north of Ireland, on the faith of which an enormous amount of

capital had been invested by tenants in improvements, was to be entirely swept away by Mr. Napier's Bill. To show this, Mr. Shee entered upon a rigorous examination of some of the clauses of the Bill, which he insisted did not deal fairly with the tenants, and would stop for ever all claims under the Ulster or any other custom. custom. The forms and complicated arrangements required by the Bill would throw insuperable obstacles in the way of all improvements. In conclusion, he proposed that this Bill, and that which he had brought in, should both be referred to a Select Committee, in order that a good Bill might be passed upon the subject in the present session, and the question be finally settled.

Mr. R. Moore approved of the principles and general details of the series of Bills brought in by Mr. Napier. Though his sympathy was with the tenant, and he desired to obtain for him a full measure of justice, he demanded also justice to property, the laws of which were violated, he said, by the very first enactment of Mr. Serjeant Shee's Bill. The learned Serjeant, he observed, had dwelt much upon the tenant-right of Ulster; but he had not stated what it was for a very sufficient reason-because it was impossible to define it. There was not one uniform tenant-right custom in Ulster; how was it possible to legalize such a custom? What was to be done, then, was to look out for a principle by which a tenant should be compensated for any unexhausted improvements he might have made; and this principle was embodied in the Bill under consideration, which Mr. Moore defended against the criticisms of