The Express.
London, England, 1848-06-22 00:00:00

2

wbenrer bribery end corrupt treating were reported to

Mr. Mr. ADDERLEV said, even if these writs were issued,
legmiry would not be prevented ; indeed, he thought a good
afoot would result from it, for the idea of preliminary pun-
hilmients would he removed.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD had hitherto voted against the bane
of these writs, but he did not think be was longer justified
in pursuing that course. He saw not the smallest hope that
during the present session the parliament intended to do
anything to prevent corruption. (Hear, hear.) He thought
all their proceedings leaked like an attempt to deceive the
country into a belief that they were very anxious to do that
which they had no intention of doing.
Mr. SLANEY thought the house owed a deep debt of
obligation to his hon. friend for introducing, as he had done, •
measure providing for inquiry into these matters. He hoped
the government wined, without delay, give his hon. friend
effective assistauce, for it was of the greatest eeneequence
that they should in some way or other show that they were
ready to apply a practical remedy to the evil. Having
looked to the evidence in this particular case, he thought
there was no suffieient ground for sus ,ending Cie writ for
Cheltenham.
Sir D. L. EVANS did not desire to be one of those who
gave grounds for the opinion out of doors that they were
playing with these questions; and desiring also to act with
consistency, be shout,: vote against the into of the writ.
Mr. Serjeant TALFOURD hoped they should deal with
the question as one of individual justice prim; facie. This
constituency had done nothing to justify the house us exec ci-
ting the power it poe-eased of suspending the writ. No
wholesale corruption was proved, though in one or two in-
stances isolated treating had been established. If they sus-
pended writs upon ouch grounds, they would defeat their
very find object—that of giving an interest to an electorate
to expose corruption.
Mr. HENLEY agreed with 8•47 word that had been
said by the last speaker. The principle laid down by mem-
bers opposite went to this, that if among the 30,000 electors of
Yorkshire one single man was treated with • pot of beer the
writ for the shire was to be suspended until a roving com-
mission had inquired in.° the perfect purity of the whale
30,000. (Hear.)
Mr. OSBORNE must sty ha thought the course taken he
the Rome Secretary was most extramdinary. After patting
the member for Ftint upon the back, and urging him to
bring in • sort of mock reform bill, he came down and voted
for the very thing that bill was to prevent. (Hear, hear.)
Coated( ring the course the government had tski n, he mild
not but think they had virtually abandoned their mock bill.
After their shuttling and conjuring conduct, ho thought they
would not be able to get the members to support their bill.
For his own part he should not vote at all upon the question.
(Ironical cries of " hear.")
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL wished to bring back the house
to the temper in which he thought they ought to discuss this
question. The honourable gentleman who had just
conic back fresh in amiability from his rural enjoyments
seemed unaware of what had been done or what had been
proposed. It hid been his lot to be chairman of the cons
mittees on the elections both for Lincoln and Cheltenham.
In the Lincoln cue he had himself moved the writ the
some evening the report hail been made. The writ had been
Wined. In the Cheltenham case there was only one incident
which gave any supicion of extensive corruption. Such
cases must not be confounded with those of Yarmouth and
Leicester, where corruption was old and hereditary. He felt
it to be his duty to support the issue of the writ.
Mr. NE WDEGATE agreed wits the member for Middle.
HI that there had been elicitation on this subject en the
part of her Majesty's government.
Ccl. SIBTHORP characterised the bill of the hon.
baronet (Sir J. Helmer) as a most mischievous, most inqui-
sitorial, and most unconstitutional in. a,ure. He should de-
cidedly vote for issuing the writ.
Sir J. FAKING lON thought it would have been better
to hays discussed the question of all the vacant boroughs to
gather. At the same time he should vote for the present
motion, because he considered th it no borough should
be kept vacant spinet which no Pieced r,port had been
directed.
The house divided.—For hewing the writ 5O
Against
The writ was then ordered to
TENAN!S AT WILL (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. H. DRUMNIOND then moved that the house go into
committee on this bill.
Sir G. GREY suggested the postponement of the discus-
sion on this bill until the similar measure introduced by
another hon. member was also before the house, so that their
respective merits might be considered together.
Mr. 11. DRUMMOND said that his bill differed from the
other measure introduced on the subject in this important
resp.ct, that hi, measure merely applied to money which
had been already expended by the tenant, whereas the other
measure was of a prcspective character. The hon. member
then proceeded to urge the adoption of the bill before the
house as a means of remedying a great injustice which bad
been inflicted upon Ireland by lanilord legislation, which
had first created a m is. of 40s. freeholders for its own pur-
poses, and when tl.eSe freeholders couiLno longer be made
use of, wanted to turn them all out of their holdings, and
even pull down their e Amps over their heads. The hon.
gentleman adverted to the Roman catholic pr,ests, who, in
the absence of legitimate maintenance, had resorted to all
sorts of cintr;vances for a livelihood ; encouraging juvenile
marriages, for ex imple, to the infinite damage of the coun-
try, mercy the cake of the fees, though
the exaction of fees was altogether illegal, as
had been declared by repeated canons. The whole
system of landlord and tenant in Ireland was vicious
in the highest degree, placing the tenant so entirely at the
mercy of the lanalorS, that, as as Irish L rd Chancellor had
expressed it, a landlord of straw could grind down • tenant
of steel. What he proposed was that no tenant-at-will timid
be ejected from his house, if he had built it, wi houtreceiving
the price of the house. The proposition would sonnd •
mere absurdity in Eng ish ears, but would be well under-
stood and aporeciated in Ireland. Teem were oil er im-
provements which he should require the tenant to receive
compensation for, and which he would det,il in committee.
He did not mean to say that the grievances se loudly and
so justly complained of by Ireland could be effectually re-
moved, except by the presence and care of a resident pro-
prietary. No legislation could supply the want of this grand
remedy ; but in the meantime be thought that much good
might be effected by 'be measure which he now requested
the house to go into committee upon.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said that a great number of meet.
logs had been held on the subject of tenant-sight in Ireland,
which, although developing views and feelings of the utmost
importance for the legislature and the public to know, the
English press had wholly omitted to notice. It was the uni-
versal demand of the tenantry of Ulster that tenant right
should be secured to them by legislative enactment. As to
the bill of the hon. member for Surrey, while he concurred
fully that the tenant should receive the proportionate value
of the legitimate expenditure he had made, he considered
that it would be unfair that the landlord should be respon-
sible for any extravagant and unwarrantable outlay which
the tenant might have chosen to incur. On the other hand,
the reasonable ela;ms of the tenant were by no means satis-
fied by the present bill, for it failed to give him that security
of tenure which it was his right to enjoy. It was, however,
a step in the right direction, and he should therefore sup-
port it.
Lord C. HAMILTON denied that the hon. gentleman
represented the feeling of the tenant population of the north
of Ireland. The large mass of that tenantry, on the con-
trary, wholly rejected the views of the hon. member as mis-
chievous fallacies. Tho meetings, whose proceedings the
hon. member reproached the Louden press for omitting, were
mere holc'and corner affairs, got up by itinerant agitators,
infinitely more with an eye to repeal than to the question of
tenant right. The farmers had nothing to do with throe
meetings. What was the composition of the very grandest
of them ? Why this, that the chairm in was a half-pay navy
surgeon, and the leading orator, a Mr. Macknight, the
publisher of a London journal, who harps upon a chord of re
perat agitation. The noble lord opposed the bill before the
ouse.
Mr. FAGAN vindicated the character of the hon.member
for Rochdale as a man who MO thoroughly acquainted with
the whole subject, a proprietor of large estates in the district
where tenant right prevailed and had conscientiously employed
all hisiefforts to the amelioration of tenant conehoon. The
bill before the house he Mr. Fasten) regarded as contain-
ing the elements of much good to Ireland.
-Sir W. SOMERVILLE regretted that the hon member
for East Stine, had not postponed his bill until the other
bill on the subject was before the house. As the hon. mem-
ber had not consented to do AO, he (Sir W. Somerville)
should move as an amendment test the bill be read a see nd
time that dry six months. There were no doubt some use-
ful suggestions in the me turc, but the practice] effect of
ifs principle would be that every landlord would have to
Tay the purchase money of hie estate over again to the
tenant, simply on the production by the latter of a packet of
papers, got up no matter how, as vouchers of alli ged expen-
diture, no matter Low prepoaterous, upon tie property,
during the term of his Last orcupaten. With refirence to
the views of the hon. member for Rochdale, whose personal
character, let him observe, he respected equally with that of
any man in the house—(hear, hear) he had taken consider-
able pains to .acquire their precise meaning, but he
must confess he had arrived at no understanding on the
subject. A Mr. Laotian, secretary to one of the tenant right
associations, had put it down in black and white that there
was no legislation practicable upon the question of tenant-
right, an opinion in which he (Sir W. Somerville) entirely
concurred. The right hen. baronet then moved that the bill
be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. P. SCROPE contended that the condition of the
tenants in Ireland required material amelioration. At pe-
rmit they were Shelly at the mercy of their landlords. He
considered that thi hon. member for Rochdale was a more
authentic exponent et the feelings of the Ulster tenants on
this occasion than was the noble lord opposite. He believed
that it wee a universal determination among the Ulster
tenants to have their tenure of the land placed Ott a more
secure footing. Ile considered te.c present a moat important
question, for he felt that, whereas one million of Irish were
driven ever here to ,eck subsistence, every Irishmen would
be enabled to obtain bin own living in his own country, if he
were permitted to have a fair share in the produce of its soil.
Mr. HERBERT said that the evils complained of by the
hon. member our Stroud arose out of the competition fee
land, • teine which was qui* e out of the control of the land.
lard. He deprecated the agitation which had been raised in
Ireland on the subject of tenant right, which was, in his
opinion, calculated to unsettle all the relations of laudlord
and tenant, and to injure all iless'a, and none more than
the tenant-farmers themselves. lie must oppose the com-
mittee.
Col. CONOLLY etientatised the proposed bill as an iu-
vsaion of property, under the guise of believolence, and
thought that, therefore, it should be denounced in the
strongest terrine Its his opinion the monster i vil of Iceland
was the subdivision ot lend, and nothing was more calcu-
lated to perpetuate the *Warn than the Mil before the house.
lie should also feel it his duty to oppose the committee.