The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-03-30 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN

.

• HOUSE • OF - LORDS.---YEstnan.ty.
. Earl Da P,REY AND RIPON, in reply, to the Earl.of
Carnarion, --stated that it was.- intended to exempt
yeomanry horses from the horse tax.
The ...Ear* of I.,l.E;iiionouon.-, asked- whether the'
:Gnveroment?hacl officially received..the speech of, Mr.
Wilsonirron • the subject of Indian finance.: The-beit
means of
.promoting the -prosperity of .Inclini."*Afir
establishinent of friendly. relations betw,een:the Europegn
authorities and the natives, but he was afraid that the
plan of Mr._, Wilson would have an effect directly
contrary, and that- the collection of the proposed taie4
would give rise to extortion and continued dispute.
The Duke of ARGYLL said that copies of 'the speech
had heel). sent, to the Secretary for, India •,ancl„to .the
members of the:Cowl-61. It was, however, a speechfor
which Mr. Wilson was individually responsible, and it
was, therefore;: notintended to laY it on: the' thble as
parliamentary • document. He was most anxious to
promote harmony in India, but how were they to pro-
vide for 4 deficiency of £9;000;000 without. opening new
sources of revenue
Lord LYNTRDBN hoped that such information would he
afforded. ta would enable their lordshipsto judge of the
• plan. -
The-Duke of ARGYLL said that-the official despatch
would be produced. as soon as it arrived, and -then the
whole matter might I)6' brought tinder discussion. , -
After some-further conversation the subject dropped,
and the House adjourned7at 7.30. • .• •

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—YESTERDAY,I •
The Speaker took the chair at four o'clock.
Sir R."..131m gave notice that on the morrow (this
day) he should call attention to the position' of Switzer-
land with reference to the annexation of Savoy to France.
Mr. BOWYER asked- the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, whether Lard Cowley had forwarded to her
Majesty's Government a copy of a note, dated the 29th
day of `February, last, 'from his eminence the Cardinal
Secretary of State to the Nuncib at Paris, answering the
arguments of M. de Thouvenel; and also, whether
her 11fajesty's Government will lay the State papers upon
the table of the house.
Lord JOHN RMSELL said that our charge' d'affaireA
at-,Rome had spoken to Cardinal Antonelli on the
subject, who had promised that a copy of the note
would be forwarded to the Government.- Whew- it
arrive it Wo—uT. dbelaid -before thafouse.
Mr...-Viricn• asked the Attorney-GeneiaDif St4la
state to the hbuse what will be the increased charge bn
the consolidated , fund by the operation of the new

Bankruptcy Bill ?
Sir C. WoOn said that 'arrangements Wl* 'low Id
progress in. India respecting.* mode of distribution,4:
the Lucknow prize money, which were not yet cone
In reply to Lord Ashley, .
Sir,. G. C. .LEWIS said that no sharpshooting .iitag
allowed on the part of the volunteers near the public .
footpaths.
Mr. MAGUIRE asked the Chief Secretary for Ire.lind
whether he has received the rejoinder of the Catholic
archbishops and bishops of Ireland to his reply to their:
memorial on the subject of education ; and whethesr, if ..
he liaS"riceived ,such rejoinder, he is .preper4dAlitjr A •
Upon the table at the earliest opportunity. .
Mr. CARDWELL said that he had not received `thB
rejoinder question; when he did,' he would lay it
before the SOnse. He stated, at the iane time, that
he should propose the second roading.of the Irish
Reforin Bill on =Friday, the 20th of,April..-
The LORD ADVOCATE- stated he should move the
second reading- of the ScottiSh Itefohn Bill on the same. •

day.
Colonel SYKES moved for a series of papers'' laglg
reference to the.reorganisation of the In lan army, and
at great length defended the native arm,, pointing out
the gloriesqt IlluTachietediand the eminent men it had
produced. .
Mr. C. Btiroii said that the al:oldie!? 'of the Indian •
Army
.followed naturally the abolition of the East
India Company ; but in his opinion-the 'arintienEeput.
forth were notsufficient to justify the ',existing change.
A strictly- European army' would not be able,. _to stad
the climate. ,The head of the army, under the change,
would not be. the Governor of India, but the Com-
mander- in-Chiel,, which would be • a most fealty
arrangement.' '
Ur. BRIGHT objected to increasing the patronalT now . •
enjoyed by the Horse Guards, and vas in favour of
retaining the local-forces: - • -
Mr. A. MILES thought that lull information ought to
be given upon the subject.
Lord V. TEMPEST said it, was impossible to keep up
in-India a strictly European force.
Sir H. -WILLOUGHBY demanded the production of-the
papers. • He trusted. that the Governm6nt would' p*tse .
before they consented to the substitution of a European,
for a native force.
After a few remarks from Sir J. Etpbiiistone, i• •
Sir C. WOOD' said that the opinion of the Government
had, owing to recent circumstances and representatioa,
undergone some change, but he could not at present pro-
mise to produce more than a portion of the correspOnd-
ence.
Lord PALMEitSTON asked -where would 'be the real
difference between an army ander the Company and an
army under the Queen. But an army not under-the
control of Parliament would be 'an unconstitutional
force, and Parliament would have that control over a
force from the general army which it had not over a heal
force. The Governor-General would have exactly the
same power over the movement of the European as over
those of the lobe 'force. He objected- to the production
of papers which would only Afford partial; and imperfect
inforniation;. and trusted that it would be left to the
Government' to give the needful information at the
proper time. - -
Colonel Nonni thought that it was highly objection;
able to produte the information relative to this important
subject, piecemeal, and should support the Ooverignen_
in its refusal to introduce them.
Mr. KINNAIRE should support the motion. - There Ntas
risk lest the Government should take unforeseen measures
at the ead of the session, or during the recess. •
Mr. Ira:am-mar having said a words, and
Colonel.Srxes having briefly replied,
Sir. C. -Wool) pledged 'himself to produce 'all the
necessary pagers so soon as the information on both
ilides -was complete.
The motion was negatived without a division..
Mr. LINDSAY moved that an humble address be pre-
sented to,her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously
pleased to enter into negotiations with the Emperor of
the French, with the view of making a treaty for the
reciprocal abrogation of all discriminating duties levied
updnithe vessels and their cargoes of either of the two,
nations in the ports of the other, and for procuring each
alterations in the navigation laws of France as may tend
to facilitate the commercial intercourse, and strengthen
the friendly relations. between England and Fiance. He
made this motion, yet more- in the 'interest -of. France '
than of England, entering into the history of the
navigation laws and their result, to prove the soundness
of his views. If the French Government was not pre- •
pared to go to the full extent of his demand, they ought '
to treat the trade from our eolonies on the same principle
as .that of the mother country. He trusted -that the
Government woUld- use its utmost efforts to impress-
upon France, that, if the treaty was to produce, the
results -expected, she must make serious changes in her
navigation laws.
HORSFALL secondeded the motion, hoping that it
would have not only the support of the Government,
but the unanimous support of the House. _
—Mr. M. GIBSON promised,'on'tfiTpart-of the Govern-
ment, to use all due carein obtaining a iemission of the
French navigation laws ; and he hoped. that its efforts
would be as successful here as it, was elsewhere. - , The
change would, he believed, be as advantageous to France
as to ourselves. „ •
• ,
After some further discussion the motion was agreed to.
Mr. CARD WELL moved forleave to introduce a bill to
amend the law relating to the tenure and improvement
of land in
.Ireland. The subject had occupied the atten-
tion of the country since 1815, especially since the
labours of the Devon 'Commission. Each succeeding
Government had made efforts and proposals to settle the
question without success. Private individuals, 'as
Sergeant Shee and Mr. Maguire, had made a similar
attempt with a.similar result. The present Government
had hopes of being able to obtain a more successful
issue : first, because the condition of Ireland was mueli
improved; and secondly, because previous discussions
had pointed out the course to be pursued. The distinc:
tion of the relations of landlord and tenant in' Irelanil,
and those of other parts of the empire, were allowed
and it must be borne in mind that the question must be
settled in accordance with the . peculiar condition.
of Irish society. The Devon commission had observed
that in England and Scotland the landlord provided
farm buildings and offices, and kept the lanes and fences
in order. This, owing to the • smallneis of the farms_in
Ireland, was not then done, and this difference in law
and practice Was the foundation of all legislation on the
subject: Improvements had since 'that commission taken
place, which rendered the task of legislation more easy.
Since 1846, by money spent in works and drainage, arid
the multiplication of railroads, the greatest impro've-
meat had been derived to Ireland. The value of live-stock
since 1815 had doubled. The proportion of small bold.'
inga had changed; 2,000,000 of acres had been sold undet
the' Enctimbered Estates Court to 8,500 persons, most
of these ready to expend large sums in the improvement
of their property. The rate of wages now averaged
ls. .3d. per day. Evictions and crime had greatly
decreased, as had pauperism and the expenditure for the
relief of the poor. The present was therefore a favour-
able time for legislating on the subject, and 'establishing
a hied and definite law, under which landlord, tenant,
and workman might invest their capital and labour
faireftdeospr
seetetotflepthroea.
and the
wleittihiocultauldelaseoi
held d.,
Under such conditions neither party had any encourage-,
merit to invest money in improvement. They proposed
i
Tt ohdee aialnwithciordt h,estehcategories outn. ham; ted
lease,hol dacnrds otftlperop
without lease, following the precedent of many former
ertlY
tenant 4
acts. He proposed that money might be borrowed on
the security of settled estates, for purposes of 'draining
buildings, farm houses, and other 'modes, of improvirtgl
the land. For this purpose application to the Court of
Chancery had been found too dear, and it was not too-
stitutional to apply to the commissioners of valuation=
He therefore proposed that the first application should.
be made to the chairman of the county. The limited
owner of an estate would by the hill have, by means of
an agent, to give notice to his succhssion, and after
having so done, the chaixmah would have the power of
granting what he called a charging order. Money bor-
rowed under this order, would be charged as an annuity
on estate, payable f0r.25 years, at therate of 7s.
the 2d.
annually.for each £IOO. With respect to the tenant
under lease they proposed to extend the existing law by"
giving'the power of granting improvement leases, and
to grant that power to corporate bodies. This WO
would promote draining, making fences and roads,
and building farm houses. They proposed that improve-
, ment leases might be granted with the sanction of the
chairman of the county for forty years ; • and building
leases, with the sanction of the Estate Courts, it' the land
, was beyond three acres; and if less, with the sanction
of the chairman of the county. There remained. the
most difficult part of the question—that of the tenant
; holding without lease. He stated at the outset what
I they could not 'do. He could not give retrospection
cornpensaticrn. His. bill -,.vnis simply ProsPer7
He entreated those who thought the retrospective coy
oi-
pensation could be afforded to' regard the
such attempts, which had always failed to .ebtarar:9r
sanction of the House, and. urged them not to sacrifice
what was practicable for what was impractip4bleL °4
Could he believe that a measure . would be
ll;
without giving the landlord the power of objet ant
hihte
improvements if he did not approve of-Abe n
.did not believe that they could insure, the proving

tett= compensation for his improvenitutS7.—Thlrtotild
mot, under the peculiar. condition of Irish property,
be Urine. by . a capital payment,, jbut Might be
.clone in the force of an annuity. They pl-o-;
Tposed that when a tenant.solight tolim.prove, he should
:serve notice upon his landlord or the agent. If the
'landlord disapproved, of the improvement* he should
at once proceed to terminate the 'tenancy between the,
'tenant. :Ile believed that the result of this wouls be,
not eviction, but written agreements. If the landlord'
. took nosteps he would be regarded as giving his consent.
The 'tenant might then get from the chairman of the.
.eounty.a provisional certificate, under which he would'
be empowered to burrow, money,as an annuity, to. be
repaid at a calculation of i 5 per cent. interest in twenty-
five years. If the tenant was, evicted,he would go to the
chairman and obtain a 'charging order,wherebylae could
obtain compensation for his improvement. Of those
who expected fixity. of tenure he could hold out no
realisation of their hopes, reminding them that all efforts
of this kind had uniformly failed. He appealed to Irish
members not to reject_ what was. good, in vain hopes of
'obtaining what was impossible. If the measure was
not ambitious it was on this account snore likely to be,
enceessful. After twenty-five years of difficulty, let
them consent to what was, at least, ,an instalment of
justice to Ireland. • '
Lord, FERMOY cibserved. that the: measure might
especially be called a dabbling measure, .He.wished to
,know who was to lend the money. He protested against
evictions,;amd called the bill a piece,of legis-
lative quackery. It would be better, in .his opinion, if
•matters remained as they were.
The O'DoNooiruE did not . think that the provision
for tenant without leases improved, the present state; of
•m_ atters.-
hir. Ilkla.Gtan..m. did. not •object to the propositions of
43's bill; referring to the two first ,classes, butcondemned
those affecting tenants without leases.
LObiGFORD took a• more favourable view of the
'unt.- and believed it would produce important results.
Mr. • MONfiELL said that as it was landlords, could
borrow from the. Board of Works money on much. more
favourable termai. He strongly ,objected. to. ,the pro-
vision that a tenant,t failing to, obtain the consent of his
landlord, was to be, at once ejected.
,Mr. WEEITESIDE would , not give to the county_ court
l;iktuges,_ the large powers given them in the bill. He
iksewule protested • against the provision making
refusal of the landlord an, act of, ejectmeid.
`n gcstilft respects. he thought the 'hill .nas a satisfactory
°r,e, and he would give every endeavour to passing a .
€.atif4actorY Measure. •
The ATTonmiy-GENERAL for Ireland said that nothing
was further from the intention of the bill
.than to
:facilitate evictions. The only object was,to enable the
landlord to withhold his consent to improvements he did
not like.
Mr. 11°wYer, Mr. Hennessy, and Mr. Blake,, disap-
proved of the bill as it stood. •
Mr, GEORGE would wait till the bill was on.the,table
before 'he gave bis,opinion. ,
Mr..Ma.i.D.4:approved Of the bill, which he wished
'e°111(1 be extended, to Englund. -He had understood the
proposal to include
,ejectments when the landlord did not
Assent to improvements, but he was glad to find that
Jthis was not the case.
OanowELL said that he had •no intention of
increasing the power of eviction. His object was to
introduo the system. of Written agreements, and to
prevent, the landlord from remaining silent; and there
borrow not, as supposed,. any similiar power at present to
money for improvement..
• Leave was then -given to introduce the bill. •
Mr' DE4s7r introduced, without observation, a bill to
censolidatuand aniend the law of landlord and tenant in
Ireland. •
WISE moved for ,a select committee to inquire
into the, miscellaneous expenditure, and to report to
the House whether any reduction-can, in their opinion,
be effected in that branch of the public expenditure.
The motion was agreed to. , • • The Common Lodging-houses (Ireland).Bill was read
a second time.,.
Mr. ROWSFALL moved the second reading :of the
Pawnbrokers' Bill.
Mr: E. 'TAXES opposed .it -as a Manchester bill, and
oppressive to the poor.
On a division, the second.. reading was carried by,178
to 32.,
The consideration of the Income-tax Bill as amended
was adjourned, after a long debate OR the' subject of
Proceeding with it.
The, Stamp Duties Bill: passed through committee.
The House then adjourned at half-past two