The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-05 00:00:00

CANADA.

Mr. HERRIES asked the Noble Lord to explain how
it was that some documents connected with Canada had
been omitted from the papers laid before the House, be-
cause they were too voluminous. Were they omitted by
the authorities in Canada, or by the Colonial office in
making up the papers?
Mr. HUME said that before the question of the
Hon. Member for Oxford was answered, and before the
motion came on of which he had given notice, ho
thought that it was necessary that the several papers
respecting the various expenses incurred by these losses
should be laid upon the table of the House. The House
had a right to know what these expenses
arose from, and how the progress of the
contest had increased their amount; and he also de-
sired to know what papers the Government were in
possession of that had not been laid on the table of the
House.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that all the documents which
had been received from Canada had been laid on the table
of the lionse.

Mr. GLADSTONE said that all the documents in
the possession of the Colonial-office during his presi-
dency over it had been published.
THE PALACE COURT.
Mr. OSBORNE wished to ask the Attorney-General
whether any steps bad been adopted for abolishing the
nuisance of the Palace Court?—(Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the neces-
sary- communication had been entered into wilh her
Majesty's Steward of the household, and the only ques-
tion, he believed, which remained to be settled, was ono
of compensation to the officers of the court.—(Loud
Cheers.)

Mr.:6SBORNE—Then am I to understand that a Bill
will be brought in during the present session for the
abolition of the court? %Vial a Bill be brought in this
session ? —(lear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—There was much
to consider; he could not say. It was impossible to
say whether the Bill would bo brought in.—(oh.)
Mr. J. O'CONNELL suggested that a similar Bill
should be brought in to abolish the Attachment Courts
in Ireland. The matter then dropped.
INCUAIBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motioa for the third reading of this Bill,
Sir L. O'BRIEN said, that this was a Bill for neither
more nor less than hurrying the incumbcrcd estates in
Ireland into the market, and as the names of the pro-
posed Commissioners had been refused be should move
that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
Colonel DU-NNE, in rising to second the motion, pro-
tested against the allegation that Irish landed proprie-
tors had not done their duty by their tenantry iu pro-
viding employment for them, and said that the real
truth was, more had been dono for the
labouring inhabitants in Ireland in that way,
than in any other part of the United Kingdom.
He denied that the incumbered condition of property
was the cause of the poverty and distress which now
existed in most of the unions of Ireland, and attributed
those evils to the poor-law, and to the manner in which
it was administered by the Government. In one union
in the county of Galway, there was scarcely an incum-
bored proprietor, although it was the scene of distress
and misery. It had been alleged that the difficult
transfer of property was another cause of the evil; but,
on examining the facts of the case, he found that there
had been a great deal of exaggeration upon this head.
From a return it appeared that property amounting to
700,0001. was under the care of the Court of
Chancery in Ireland, but that included the es-
tates of lunatics and minors. The entire va-
luation of property in that country as stated by
Lord Rosso was twenty millions, but of that scarcely a
twenty-eighth part was under the custody of the Lord
Chancellor. Ho mentioned these facts because it had
been asserted that a fourth and even two-thirds of the
whole property was under the guidance of the Masters,
which was a gross exaggeration. In other countries where
the transfer of property was perfectly free there was to
be found embarrassment equally great to that of Ireland.
Fifty per cent. of the whole land of France changed
hands within ten years after the revolution
in 1790,
and though now it was in the possession of five
million and a half of families, the debt
upon it amounted to two-thirds of its value. He,
therefore, thought the representations with respect to
the division of property in Ireland was extremely incor-
rect. He admitted that it was difficult to find a pur-
chaser at the present moment for land; in one instance
an estate was put up three times for sale in Mr. Brook's
office within one year, and yet it was impossible to
get a bid for more than three years' purchase.
He wou4l like to know whether the object of this Bill
was to get rid of the proprietors of Ireland, without
giving them full value for their estates? What was it
to Irishmen if the House removed the landlords of the
people of Ireland, and planted the most thriving colony
in theircountry ? If the people of Ireland went to America
the feelings and sympathies of their landlords would go-
with them. The House had passed confiscation after
confiscation Bill, and tried similar Bills to that before the
House, and the state of the country, after seven years of
that kind of legislation, was nearly as bad as in the time
of Elizabeth. If the Irish people went to America, the
landlords became American people also. The Hon.
Member concluded by supporting the motion of
his Honourable Friend, that the Bill be read
a third time that day six months.
Mr. GROGAN said this was the most Algerine Bill
which had ever been proposed to Parliament. It was
proposed to give a control over property in Ireland
which no English proprietor would ever submit to for a
moment. For that reason, he would vote against the
third reading of this Bill.

Mr. NAI"IER said he would state to the House the
grounds on which ho thought this Bill ought not to pass.
He concurred in many of the objects of the framers of
this Bill. On consideration he thought it would be
admitted that two classes of machinery would be
required for carrying out this Bill, namely,
both administrative and judicial machinery. Ise
admitted that the Court of Chancery in these
matters was susceptible of improvement, that greater
facilities ought to be given, but he contended that its
powers ought not be superseded. Was it likely that
professional men in Ireland, whose professional acquire-
ments were considered equal, if not greater, than those
of the Lord Chancellor, wonkl forsake their profession
to take an appointment of five yrars with a salary of
7,000 i. a rear?—(Bear.) Ti,cy might call it romance (.r
anything they liked; but if Ilicse Commissioners were
to be empowered to make rules, es was stated in the
Bill, they would endanger the safety of the pro-
perty with which they might deal, since it
would be removed beyonu the scope of the
law of the land, than which nothing could be more
dan-
gerous. Besides they would supersede the supervision
of the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls.
Again, they did not know who the Commis-
sioners were to be ; they were to be subject,
it was true, to the control of the Privy Council,
in which there were bishops and other persons, but the
Council had the power to act as they thought proper,
for they would not be bound by any laws. And thus
they were going to deal with the whole property of

Ireland, which, though much reduced in value, had,
in many cases, been obtained by honest industry.
Ho thought the provisions of the Bill most useless and
uncalled-f.)r, and ho should therefore vote for the
amendment. It was not a wise course of Government
to be contii-lually introducing now measures on this sub-
ject to supersede others in existence, because it served
only to shake public confidence in the administration of
justice. He did think that a special jurisdiction in Ire-
Lad was neither more nor 1053 than an imposition, and the
way in which they we:e treating Ireland was an insult
to the country. The Honourable Gentleman then
went on to examine seriatim those clauses which re-
gulated
the sale of estates, and the application of the
funds to the public expenses of the district, and
then stated it to be his firm belief that the Bill
would be made a means of defrauding the local revenue.
—(Hear.) Why could they not deal with property
in Ireland as they dealt with laud here, as they dealt
with it under the Lands Clauses Bill?—(lIear, hear.)
Why, he asked again, should they have a separate
jurisdiction for property in Ireland. If it was
shown that the Court of Chancery was incompetent
to deal with it, he would grant that some cause was
mad© out for the establishment of an additional juris-
diction, but no such cause had been or could be made
out; and he repeated, therefore, that this Bill was
neither more nor less than an insult to Ireland.
There was plenty of property for sale in Ireland, but it
could not be disposed of except only at a few years' pur-
chase. As to the particular measure, he would say that they
were not justified in going beyond what the ne-
cessities of the case actually required ; and if
they did, they would perpetrate a great injus-
tice upon that country. Excessive powers were
given to the Commis-loners appointed under the Bill, but
they were relieved of all responsibility, and would not,
in certain cases, even be subject to a writ of mandamus.
He objected to this Bill as therein it was made a special
case against the whole of Ireland, throwing the whole
property of Ireland under the control of Commissioners.

Mr. gADLEILZ had the misfortune to take a very dif-
ferent view of he measure before the House from that
of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman who had
preceded him. To the principle of the Incumbered
Estates Act of last session, as reflected in its preamble,
he had given an unqualified support, though he objected
to some of its details. His Hon. and Learned Friend took a
very narrow view of the Bill before the House. He seemed
to think in passing this Bill the House would he destroying
a vast deal of the property in Ireland; but if his Hon.
and Learned Friend had known what were the practices
of the Master's office in Ireland, he would not have
spoken as he had done in respect of its being superst ded.
So far as the appointment of the Commissioners was
concerned, he cared not what these gentlemen might be,
provided they were active, intelligent, business men,
who would efficiently do their duty, and whether they
did so on the principles of the Court of Chancery or no,
should they do it expeditiously, he was alike careless.
Were they to do their duty, he was, however, certain
the measure would be the means of rescuing a large
amount of the property in Ireland from the useless state
in which it now lay; as at present, the character and
conditions of sale propounded by the Court of Chancery
were the means of scaring away purchasers from those
incumbered properties, and therefore they continued
useless. He therefore supported the third reading of the
Bill, because it took up bolder ground than the Bill of
last session. But he would at the some time call atten-
tion to some defects in it. One of these was as re-
garded life-renters, and to take it out of their power to
put the Act in operation, as it was impossible to bring
within the compass of this Act estates so situated.
Why should not the tenant for life be empowered
to take the initiative, and sell the inheritance
for the benefit of the lift-renters; and why, also, should
the creditor of the tenant for life ba shut out from par-
ticipating in the proceeds? If that were done they
would be really facilitating the sale of incumbered es-
tates in Ireland. He also thought that the powers of the
Commissioners were too limited. They had not the
power of compelling the attendance of witnesses, or the
production of deeds, except by a most circuitous route.
It would likewise produce a most salutary and beneficial
effect in Ireland were the Commissioners empowered
immediately to expose for sale those estates which were
hung up in the Courts of Chancery and Equity in Ire-
land.—(Hear.) The most serious objection he had to
that measure was in consequence of the professional ab-
sentee proprietors of Ireland; and he regretted the Bill
was not so framed as to afford them an advantageous
mode of disposing of their iucumbercd property. It was
thought by many that it mattered not to the tenantry
s hewer their landlords received their rents on the banks
of the Thames or the Tagus; but he very widely differed
from them, because he believed that nothing tended
more to the peaceful, social, and religious habits of the
people than the presence and attention of their land-
lords, He, therefore, hoped that Government would
use their powerful influence to induce those absentees
to part with some of their property by some clauses
in the Bill, which would mainly tend to the advancement
of the people of Ireland. He would allude to the words
of the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth, in reply to
Sir J. Newport, in 1816, when he (Sir H. Peel) was
then Secretary for Ireland, and the representative of an
Irish constituency, and had therefore the means and
power of judging what would be beneficial to that
country. "If I were to say from %hat measure good
would accrue to Ireland, I would say that the compulsion
of the landlords to reside there would be better than

any proposition that could come from any other party;
for he believed that the presence of the landlords would
do more good for the preservation of the peace and laws
of that country than any other system." Again, this
opinion is corroborated by that of Chief Justice Black-
burne, when examined before a Committee of the !louse
of Lords, which was to tho following effect, that much
injury arose to the truantry of Ireland in cons( (pence of
the alY,ence of the proprietors.—(Bear.) The number of
absentee landlords was rapidly increasing, for if apy of
th. tu wished to evade the pour•law tax he had only to go
to France, spend the proceeds of his property there, and
thus escape all social and political reeponBibility. The en•
tire acreage of the county of Kerry amounts to 100,983
acres; of this 9,983 acres belong to four absentees, and
half of the remaining 8,000 acres also belong to persons
not resident iu that country for many years. Be, there-
fore, considered that the Government would bring for-
ward some measure this session, for it would ba impos-
sible, under the two judgment acts to which he before ad-
verted, to dispose of incumbered estates i❑ Ireland, and
it not, capitalists will never be found to purchase those
estates. He then said he would support the Bill.
Mr. HENLEY said that from the speech of the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Sadleir), he expected that he would
move that the Bill be re-committed, but instead of that
he (Mr. Sadleir) said that he would support the third
reading of it, though all his remarks were strongly op-
posed to it. He (Mr. Sadleir) also stated that the pre-
sent measure would be as inoperative as the Bill of last
session was; thus after cutting it up in every possible
manner, he informed the House he would support it.
Ile had three reasons for opposing the third reading.
One was, that there was much of the incumbered pro-
perty that should be set loose for the benefit of Ireland,
which was not at all to be effected by this Bill, for there
was much property in that country that was without
marketable titles and prices. Another objection was,
that the Commissioners whose appointment this Bill pro-
vides for, are not to act openly and publicly, and, of
course, might Le subjects, through ex-parts stwements
and one-sided testimony, to prejudices against those
whose interests are must involved; he therefore feared
that the Commissioners might, by a jealous and annoyed
people, become suspected of jobbing. Again, ho did
not see that any national object would be gained by
taking the distribution of the funds from the proper
tribunals of the country, and placing it in the hands of
Commissioners, from whose decision and functions
there could be no appeal. He should, therefore, op•
pose it, because he did not think it would secure its
object.

Mr. SADLEIR briefly explained that he did not sup-
port the present Bill to strengthen the Bill of last ses-
sion, for the latter he believed to be inoperative.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he should
only refer to the leading points of the Bill. He cer-
tainly believed that the details alluded to by the Hon.
Member (Mr. Sadleir) should have been debated on in
Committee, and not on the third reading of the Bill, and
that if it were his (Mr. Sadleir's) opinion that the mea-
sure did not go far enough, that he would have the op-
portunity next session, when the Bill would be tested, in
case of a failure, to bring in his measure. He also con-
sidered, though contrary to the opinion of the Hen.
Member opposite (Mr. Henley), that it was confined to
incumbcred estates, and should say to him and to the
Honourable and Learned Member for the University
of Dublin (Mr. Napier) with respect to the non-in-
terference of the law courts, that the Lord Chan-
cellor of Ireland expressed his full satisfaction with
the present measure, and that it did not at all
reflect incompetency on either the Court of Chancery
or the Court of Exchequer, for there were many
matters connected with incumbered estates that the
Court of Chancery could not easily disentangle to the
satisfaction of all perties. He thought it much better
to appoint three persons who understood the subject,
and who would lay down their reasons without that
species of legal technicalities that always incumber the
sale of land.—(Hear, hear.) He always thought that
those difficulties that had been alluded to would not be
found in the working of the present measure, for there
are only two classes, the disputed and the undisputed
class; and, should any doubt at any time arise to those
three persons, they could have access to the opinions of
any of the courts they might wish to consult for the
more prompt and ready administration of their duties.
He also believed that the Bill would facilitate the means
of procuring purchasers, and that nothing would be
wanted to secure its success. The propositions con-
tained in the Bill had met with very general approba-
tion, and there was no quarter from which any sugges-
tion had emanated to the effect that, when carried into
practice, it would not prove productive of benefit. The
Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman concluded by ac-
knowledging the assistance he had derived from an
esteemed friend of his, Mr. Colsan, in his ell irt to re-
vive and regenerate the rights of property in IreNnil
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading ll7
Against it
Majority for the Bill

-105

The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
The questicAa having been put that the House should
resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,
Sir H. W. BARRON asked the Noble Lord at the
head of the Goverment whether he meant to move, on
Friday next, the Committee on the Poor Relief (Ireland)

Lord J. RUSSELL answered in the affirmative.
SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of
Supply, Mr. BERNAL in the chair.
The following votes were agreed to:-
110,117/. for superannuation allowances and compen-
sation to persons who had been employed in the public
service.
4,1001. for the relief of Anrgican loyalists end other
charges.