The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-31 00:00:00

depended in a great measure on the criterion of the value '
of livings in the King's Books, which was far from being
a proper criterion. With regard to the question of distance
he would support the proposed distance of thirty miles,
merely on the principle that it would considerably dimi-
nish pluralities.
The Earl of CARNARVON thought the plan of the
Most Rev. Prelate worthy of the best consideration, but
it ought not to be adopted hastily. He wished, for his
part, to have the law put in force, which would compel
the incumbent to reside at least six weeks in each parish
he possessed.
The Elul of HARROWBY, upon looking to the pa-
pers, found there were about 2,000 parishes in England
deprived of a resident incumbent. This depended upon,
and could, of course, only he corrected by diminishing
the number of pluralities. Now, he found that the num-
ber of persons entitled to bold two livings, and, therefore,
of those likely to obtain them, was ten times greater tt
present than it had been formerly, and it was accordingly
necessary to devise some means for lessening the extent of
a system which was felt to be injurious. Among the va-
rious modes recommended, he considered that proposed by
the Most Rev. Prelate as, perhaps, the best. He did
not consider that residence for a certain time at each pa-
rish, or the limit which might be placed on account of
population, was so good as the limitation in respect of dis-
tance, whether it be 30 or 25 miles. He decidedly ob-
jected, however, to having it reduced so low as five miles.
He thought, indeed, this limitation ought to be deter-
mined in the first instance, and then they might proceed
with the other parts of the Bill.
The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed to-morrow.

SUBLETTING (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion that their Lordships resolve themselves
into Committee on this Bill,

The Earl of WICKLOW said, when the question was
brought before the House last Session, he (Lord Wick-
low) had decidedly declared himself hostile to the Bill in-
troduced by the Noble Viscount (Melbourne). But he
did not entertain the same feelings towards the Bill at
present before their Lordships, because, although the title
was the same, yet was it completely changed in the prin-
ciples and in the details. And this simple fact of the
Noble Viscount's having now brought in a Bill so different
from that against which he (Lord Wicklow) had declared
his opposition, was in itself a complete refutation of the
assertion of an anonymous and mendacious scribe—
(Cheers)—who, in a pamphlet which he presumed to call
Friendly Advice to the Peers, but which was really
written solely with the purpose to insult and to intimi-
date their Lordships—(Cheers)—had stated that his
(Lord Wicklow's) opposition to the Subletting Act was
dictated by factious motives, and the desire to thwart his
Majesty's Ministers in their proceedings with respect to
other measures. These circumstances and this charge,
and the clamour directed against this Bill in Ireland, made
it necessary that he should offer a few words. When he
stated that clamour had been raised against the Bill in
Ireland, he did not mean to say that this clamour
should be disregarded ; for it was necessary to apply a
r remedy whenever a popular cry was raised with just
cause.—(Hear, hear.) But he did positively assert, that
never was there a case in which clamour was so little the
interpreter of public opinion as in respect to this Act. He
did most positively assert, that in the Bill of 1826 there
was not one clause which militated against strict justice.
There was not a single clause which could produce any
one of the evils which some would fain attribute to the
measure.—(Hear. hear.) He declared that the Subletting
Act was not only beneficial to the landlord in its opera-
tion, as enforcing the obligation to observe the different
covenants of the lease, but actually, for the same reason,
conducive to the interests of the poor. It was a measure
which had been well weighed and well considered. It
had emanated from a Committee of the House of Com-
mons, where it had received the most deliberate attention ;
nor was it afterwards hurried through the House. It was
introduced in one Session, and only carried in the next.
It was, as he had already remarked, beneficial alike to the
landlord and to the poor man ; and now he might be asked
from whom did the clamour proceed ? He conceived that
it proceeded from a party who did not themselves possess
any landed property, except what they held upon leases,
either granted to themselves, as was generally the case, or
else inherited from their fathers. These men, then, had
taken or inherited farms with certain covenants and agree-
ments, which compelled them to take care of these farms.
But preferring to the honest occupation of cultivating the
soil, the more idle and more consequential business of
country politicians, they, in violation of the covenants of
their lease, subdivided the land, and let it to a set of
pauper ten into, from whom they extracted the last farthing
to maintain the rank which they assumed as landholders
and country gentlemen. Having thus, under the pre-
tence of taking their proper position in society, violated
their contracts to their landlords; their next step was,

to raise a clamour against this Act as the cause of that
misery which, by their false and profligate conduct, they
had themselves occasioned.—(Cheers.) They wring the
last farthing from their wretched tenants, and when dis-
tress bad reached its height, and extreme misery had pro-
duced disturbance, these men exclaimed against that law

for producing those evils of their own creation—evils, to
prevent which was the prime object, the almost exclusive
intention, of this act of legislation.—(Hear, hear.) Those
very individuals, who have by their own heartless pro-
ceedings occasioned all the mischief, when it becomes
galling almost beyond endurance, denounce their own
landlords, the owners of the soil, as the moat barbarous
men in the world, because there is distress on their
estates, although they are by no means to blame for it—
some being absent, and others, though present, unable to
apply the slightest remedy ; and then, as delegates at
some illegal assembly, or as, perhaps, leading members of
it, the persons who have themselves done all the wrong,
alike to the gentlemen above and the peasant below them,
raise a clamour against the Sub-letting Act, as the origin
of every evil.—(Hear, hear.) He positively asserted, in
the presence of their Lordships and of the country, that no
evil could possibly result from the Sub-letting Act. The
distress prevailing at present amongst the Irish poor arose
from a combination of circumstances. Amongst those he
might particularly mention the disfranchisement of the
forty-shilling freeholders, and the view taken by the pro.
prietors of farms of the mode of cultivating them. The
proprietors
crowdshado of paupersflatebee
nanxuit that before to disembarrass
mmcloaanrsruassedtheir
land of the its
produce, without any adequate return; and this he
admitted, had to a certain extent been the cause of
the distress throughout the country. But that this
Bill had been the cause of ejecting a single tenant from
his holding, upon the faith of anxious inquiry and full
investigation, be positively denied. Of the present Bill
he entirely approved, as far as it went; but he thought it
ought to be extended a little farther. He considered, that
as its object was to prevent the subdivision of lands, that
protection which it gave to the farms let by the proprietor
of the soil ought to be continued beyond the life of the
lessee. According to this Bill, if the lessee died intes-
tate, or if he willed it to his children in any number, that
very subdivision would take place which it was the object
of the law to prevent. Ile maintained, too, that this
would be no hardship, because, if a man took a farm
with a clause absolutely prohibiting subdivision now or
hereafter, or under any circumstances, he could not com-
plain of being compelled to adhere to an engagement into
which he had knowingly and willingly entered. He was
especially desirous to have this addition made to the Bill,
and he was anxious to send it to the other House as free
as possible from blemish, knowing the troubled sea on
which in its manumission there it was sure to be cast—the
clamour with which it would be met, and the desperate
opposition it would encounter from certain individuals, and
the little chance it had of obtaining from the:a at least a
fair bearing.—(Hear.)
Lord MELBOURNE concurred with the Noble Lord
in all the statements he had made, and all the opinions he
professed, excepting that which led him (Lord W.) to
wish for an additional clause to restrict the lessee from
willing the farm to his children, or from its being divided,
if he died intestate. He could not agree to a measure so
forcible—he could not, however anxious to carry into effect
the principle of the Bill, interfere with what were consi-
dered and regarded as the just rights of all men. This
would be paying too dearly for any advantage which might
be acquired by the clause. He entirely agreed with him
(Lord W.) as to the nature of the clamour which had
been raised, and as to the falsehood of attributing any portion
of the distress and disturbance which prevailed to the Sub-
letting Act. He admitted the Bill now before their Lord-
ships differed in many respects from the last ; and this he
accounted for by the fact of his having given the subject
more consideration, and from his being animated with the
desire to make it as perfect as possible.
The Earl of WESTMEA.TH observed, that great cla-
mour had existed on the subject, a clamour raised for the
most abominable objects.
Lord PLUNKETT observed, that the object of the
measure had been so fully explained by the Noble Earl op.
polite, that it left him little to say. As, however, he had
been the instrument of bringing in the former Bill, he might
observe, that it was true that a senseless clamour had been
raised against it ; but it bad proceeded from those who
concealed their private interests under the mask of afford-
ing protection to the lower classes. The Noble and
Learned Lord entered into an explanation of the principles
Of the Bill; and maintained, that if the proposition of the
Noble Earl to take away the power of devising in portions