Committee. He believed that the House in Ireland which was consistent with the desired to give every reasonable encour- facts of the case. The state of Ireland agement to the tenant to improve his land, was different from that of England. Here but he could not see anything in the Go- the landlord provided everything that was vernment proposal which would conduce to necessary for the tenant; in Ireland he did that end. The hon. Gentleman the Mem- not; and the presumption of law ought to ber for Tralee had stated some time since be that the tenant in such a case had that he should regard as a flash in the provided himself accordingly. The noble pan any proposal for compensation which Lord had admitted that there were many did not also contribute to fixity of tenure, defects in the Act of 1860 which he and that he could not extend his sympathy should be glad to see remedied, and by this or support to any measure which would measure the Government proposed to renot have that effect. Those, however, were medy the defects which were justly comobjects which the House was not likely plained of in that Act. At present its to entertain, nor did he believe a Govern- provisions were inoperative, because they ment would ever approve or sanction them. were surrounded by many needless forms, He believed the Bill would conduce to ill- and those needless forms the present meafeeling between landlord and tenant, and sure proposed to get rid of. He would not lead to much litigation and confusion. Al- enter into the details of a measure not yet though the course proposed by the Govern thoroughly before the House; but he welment might be attended by a momentary comed it as exhibiting a bona fide desire popularity among a certain class, he could to settle this question upon an equitable not but feel that it was attended with much footing, and to conduce to the establishdanger. ment of a better state of feeling between all parties.

COLONEL GREVILLE said, that it was certainly not new to propose a measure for the settlement of this vexed question, and therefore the proposal of the Government might, in that sense, be, as the noble Lord had said, destitute of novelty. The noble Lord had himself been a Member of the Government of Lord Derby, by whom this question had been taken in hand; and he would remind the noble Lord that the preliminary notice to which he now took exception was included in the Bill introduced by that Government for Mr. Napier's proposal to give compensation for improvements made twenty years before the Act came into operation was of a similar kind, though the benefit of that measure was frittered away. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary evinced a strong disposition to do towards the people of Ireland what was right and just, and he felt certain that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks would be welcomed in that country with great satisfaction. As an Irish landlord, and speaking in the interest of the tenant farmers of that country, he believed the measure to be an excellent one. He understood the Government to say that in the absence of a contract the presumption of the law was that the improvements were effected by the party by whom they were generally understood to be made, and that the burden of proof was thrown upon those who usually had nothing to do with them. They desired that a rule of law should be applied VOL. CLXXXIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

MR. WHITESIDE expressed surprise at the assertion that had been made by hon. Gentlemen, that the systems pursued in England and Ireland with respect to property were entirely opposite. The principle on which this Bill was founded must, if adopted, lead to most disastrous results. He thought it right that the law respecting distress should be the same in England as in Ireland. If the House, however, chose to abolish the law of distress in both countries, let it be abolished, and he would offer no objection. He asked whether hon. Gentlemen expected to impose upon the tenantry of Ireland so far as to induce them to believe they would get a real and substantial benefit by the Bill. In his opinion it would be as hopeless to attempt to empty the Thames at full tide with a teaspoon as to benefit the tenantry of Ireland by such a measure. The principle of this measure was that it should only apply to the case of unwritten contracts; but a contract was a contract whether written or not. The law at present took cognizance of unwritten and merely verbal contracts, and enforced them if they were substantiated. Why could not that course be continued? No such alteration was demanded. And what would be the effect of it? They knew how those things were managed in Ireland. The landlord would send for the tenant and say to him, "A bad law has been passed by that Parliament over the water, and it is now necessary that you sign this

I

Ireland from those which prevailed in England. He alluded to the tenant-right in Ulster as likely to be affected by this Bill, but the present measure was only an amendment of Mr. Cardwell's Act, which preserved the Ulster tenant-right unim

would find fault with a Bill which was only intended to prevent a bad landlord from doing what no good landlord would think of doing. The Bill implied the consent of the landlord, under certain circumstances, to specific improvements. It was designed to apply a remedy in the absence of a contract or of a lease. When the House had seen the Bill they would be of opinion that it did not interfere with the principles of the Resolution of the Committee of last year.

paper." And, of course, the tenant would sign it. He would ask of the right hon. Gentleman whether the Bill would be retrospective. [Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE No!] He supposed, then, that the retrospective wrongs of Ireland were not to be redressed. The Chancellor of the Ex-paired. He thought that no honest man chequer, by his measures, had succeeded in diminishing the distilleries and paper mills of Ireland. He, however, would no longer dwell upon the grievances of Ireland so far as the past was concerned. But, with regard to the present measure, who, he asked, would bear the expense of the inquiry, in case a dispute arose? Suppose a landlord said the tenant should only have £2, while the tenant thought he should have £10, at whose expense was the Board of Works to make the inquiry? The right hon. Gentleman had suggested a very good principle when he said the Bill would encourage a good feeling between landlord and tenant. No desire on his part could be more creditable to him; but the Bill, though doubtless well meant, would be perfectly inefficient in that respect. Nothing was wanted when the landlord, on the whole, was an honest and just man, and did the right thing by his tenant. In Ulster the landlords were, as a rule, good and just in their dealings. He ventured to think it was vain to hope for solid improvement in Ireland in consequence of the provisions of the Bill.

MR. GEORGE remarked that as this Bill was stated by the Secretary for Ireland it appeared to him to be a departure from the Act of 1860. The Bill of 1860 was brought in under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cardwell), and Mr. Deasey, at that time the Attorney General for Ireland, and it was admirably adapted to hold the scale fairly between landlord and tenant. Clause 40 of that Act enacted that the owner might within three months after service give notice in writing that he disapproved of the improvements proposed to be made, and no tenant had a right to begin improvements from which the owner dissented. Any legislation which would encourage the tenant to execute improvements without notice or without the consent of the landlord would, in time, improve the landlord out of his estate. The Committee of last year determined that compensation to the tenants should only be secured to improvements made with the consent of the landlord, and he trusted that the Legislature would allow of no departure from that

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON) said, the misapprehension which existed with respect to the Bill only showed how unwise it was to discuss its provisions on the Motion for leave to introduce it. He hoped the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth was not speaking the sentiments of the landlords of Ireland when he told the House that if the Bill became law it would be followed by agreements between landlords and tenants to prevent the latter from tak-principle. It was exceedingly desirable, ing advantage of the powers the Bill proposed to confer upon them. He believed that was not just to the landlords of Ireland, whom the last speaker had, in his opinion, more correctly described. Flagrant instances of injustice on the part of Irish landlords were now and then brought to light, but these he believed were the exception, and not the rule. The right hon. and learned Gentleman complained that this Bill inaugurated different legislation for the two countries. But he was either the author or aider of Bills that proposed to introduce different principles in

whether leases were taken for a shorter or a longer term that written agreements should as far as possible be adopted. He had always been anxious to give every facility and every encouragement for making improvements on land, but he had always opposed, and he would continue to oppose, the execution of improvements without the consent of the landlord.

MR. PIM hoped the House would very seriously consider the matter before it opposed the passing of this Bill, which he trusted would soon become law. The two arguments of the noble Lord who first

spoke in opposition to the Bill were, in a state of great confusion would ensue.

his opinion, greatly in its favour. The moderation of the provisions of the Bill, and the intention not to interfere with contracts, were the most important arguments that could be adduced in support of the Bill. Whatever might have been the old feudal idea in reference to the relationship between landlord and tenant, it was now held to be an established principle that a free, fair, and mercantile contract should subsist between the parties interested. The great value of the Bill consisted in the proposal to establish what appeared to him an equitable rule of law; and he trusted that it would have an important bearing on the treatment of the tenant by the landlord. He believed that bad landlords in Ireland were few, that they were not the large but small proprietors, and that they were not members of ancient families, but the new men in the land. He did not, however, argue this question either in the interests of the landlord or of the tenant, but in the interest of the commonwealth, with which it was vitally connected. It was important that this matter should be settled upon a fair and equitable basis, for he believed there was no question which so much affected the loyalty and the material im provement of Ireland as that now before the House.

It was easy to make popular speeches, but the really improving farmer would not be misled by them; and he hoped the House would not imagine that by any simple piece of legislation it was possible to settle all the complicated cases arising in connection with the land in Ireland.

MR. SYNAN protested against any attempt at discussing a Bill the terms of which were not before the House; but with regard to the principle of the measure he was clearly in its favour. The hon. and learned Member for Wexford asked whether they were going to repeal the Act of 1860. Undoubtedly, as far as the question of notice went, because investigation had shown that not a single case had yet occurred in which advantage could be taken of that provision of the Act. To that extent, it was just and necessary that a different principle should be introduced for Ireland from that which prevailed in England and Scotland. He feared the £5 limit would prove illusory.

MR. SULLIVAN had been much surprised to hear the objections urged by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford, seeing that the Act of 1860 had proved a dead letter. This was a Bill to render that a living instead of a dead measure, and to abolish the machinery which had stifled it from its birth. Were the rights of proLORD CLAUD HAMILTON could not perty appealed to by the noble Lord the feel the confidence expressed by the Se- Member for Cockermouth-rights to hold cretary for Ireland that this measure was the property improved, and to confiscate likely to prove successful. On the con- the capital which the tenant had honestly trary, he was convinced that the present spent upon it? He believed the landlords Bill failed to solve some of the difficulties of Ireland, if appealed to, would repudiate which were experienced by the Committees any such supposed rights of property. appointed to consider the subject in pre- When the Bill was laid before the House vious years. He wanted to see the ques- it would, he believed, be found to be a good tion regulated in Ireland as it was in measure for the tenant, and not to interfere England and Scotland, and such legislation unduly with the rights of property. If it as would facilitate the arrangement of mu- tended to make men more contented with tual contracts between landlord and tenant, their holdings, if it tended to make them and give the necessary power to each party stop in the country, and to lay out their for enforcing the fulfilment of them. He money without fear of its being confisthought that a simplification of the ques-cated, some advantage would certainly be tion might be effected by the adoption of gained.

Bill. He thought it contained the materials for a fair and workable measure.

a written contract, which might remove MR. ESMONDE as a landlord thanked much matter of doubt and complaint. He the Attorney General for bringing in the was puzzled to know the exact tendency of the Bill, especially after the contradictory representations which had been made in reference to it. If improvements were to be made on land without the consent of the landlord, or even without notice being given him of the intentions of the tenant in this respect, he predicted that

MR. MAGUIRE said, the Government had redeemed their promise of legislating in this matter in a worthy and honourable manner, and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin to assist the Government

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 130.] place of late years in the other House of