Mr. Ward Hunt, on Tuesday, made a speech nearly resembling
Dr. Ball's, but, of course, not eloquent. lie bit at the Bill morsel by morsel. Utterly disapproving the whole of the legalization of the Ulster custom as the perpetuation of a bad system, he objected to the new presumption of law that improvements had been made by tenants. The materials were very often found by the landlord. He denied that compensation for the loss of occupancy " could be just or equitable in principle ;" it was a subtraction from the property of the landlord." If it was argued that the landlord instead of compensation could offer a lease, then " a contract was to be extorted from him, the terms of which he was not at liberty to define." He did not object to compensation for improve- ments, or to the purchase of estates on behalf of tenants, but held that the whole Bill would pro lace endless litigation. Mr. Hardy on Thursday kept up the same strain, but made more of the injustice done to purchasers under the Encumbered Estates' Act, maintaining that any compensation due from them for back improvements ought to be paid for by Parliament ; supported freedom of contract ; held that a landlord whose land was thrown back on his hands must still pay for the right of occupancy (which was denied) ; hinted that 19 years of lease satisfied Scotchmen, and might satisfy Irishmen ; and finally, hoped, more ecclesiastic()) that " good would come of the Bill."
