The Sun.
London, England, 1831-03-19 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

SOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH IS.
Petitions were presented by Lcrd Ralnor from Christ
Church, Middlesex, and from the Fide of Thane, in favour
Re'orat ; by the Duke of Wellington from Newcastle-
,under-Lyme against the proposed measure for Reform ;
by Lord Gower from Cheater against slavery, arid from
/he Staffordshire Potteries in favour of Reform ; by Lord
Durham from Marylebone in favour of Reform, and
from Horsham to the same effect ; by the Duke
of Norfolk from Kirlicaley, from a parish in Fife,
from St. Ann's, Limehouse, Shepton Mallett, Cupar, and
several other places, in favour of Reform ; by the Duke
of Argyle, from Inverness, against the repeal of the duty
nn barilla, and from the proprietors of kelp estates,
(ruin the Hebrides, to the same effect ; by the Duke of
Devonshire, from Derby, Chester, And other places, in
favour of Reform.

The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition.
signed by :396 Members of the English bar, in favour or
Reform. The Not.le Lord also presented a petition from
Barnsley, Yorkshire, signed by upwards of 3,000 person,
to the same effect ; and twenty-nine petitions from other
daces, to the same effect, among which was one front
HA signed by upwards of 7,000 persons, The Noble
al-o presented a petition from Huddersfield,
signed by 7,000 persons, and thirtrninn other places, to
the same effect. His Lordship apologised to the petitioners
for presenting their petition* in the manner he did, but
the motive of his pursuing such a course was the unwilling_
nest he felt to oeeupy the valuable time of the House with
entering into detA* on each petition) and he was sure the
petitioners would acquithim of any neglect of their interests
when they knew that at the present moment he had up-
w 'yds of 147 petitions to present, in additie.t to those he had
already presented, some of which were from important
Corporations, otkers signed by 10,000, '2,000, and
.5,000 persons. He had in the House at the present mo-
ment 74 petitions ; bit having already trespassed largely
on the time of the House, he should pottpcne presenting
those petitions till Monday.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented petitions to
the same effect, from Bradford, Trowbridge, and another
place in Wilts ; from the parish of St. Mary, Whitechapel,
and trona the Magistrates and Tewn Council of Stranraer.
Lord KING ptesented petitions in favour of thz Mini-
sterial plan of Reform, from Beverley, in Yorkshire; from
Ernsworth, in the county of Southampton; and from some
place in the county of Lancaster.
All these petitions were laid on the t,ble.
SUB-LETTING ACT.

Lord MELBOURNE rose. pursuant to notice, to lay
on their Lordships' table an Act to repeal the Act of the
7th George IV., commonly called the Sub-letting Act, arid
to substitute other provisions in lieu thereof. As this
was a subject of great importance, especi illy to the
landholders and agricultural population of Ireland, he
hoped their Lordship would indulge him while be
made a few observations in explanation of the altera•
tine which it was intended to make in the provisions
of the existing Act. He repeated at the outset what
be had said the other night, in answer to a question put
to him by one of the Noble Lords opposite (Carberry),
that it was the intention of Ministers to maintain and sup-
port and ievigorate the principles of the existing Act,
and that the only object was to remove some in2onve-
niences and difficulties that had occurred in the execution
and operation of the statute, and clear up some doubts
that had arisen as to its proper construct on. In order
to effect this object it had been thought preferable
to repeal the Act, rather than attempt to amend
the existing Act, in order to avoid those ambiguities,
complexity, and confusion which so often resuitad
from passing several Acts for amending a particular
statute, instead of entirely remodelling it. The plan of sub-
istituting a new statute was adopted for the sake of perspi-
cuity and simplicity. Their Lordship were probably all
acquainted with the history of the Sub-letting-Act. In con-
sequence of the distresses which existed in Ireland in 1822-3,
the subject was taken under the consideration of Par-
liament, and a Committee of the 1-louse of Commons
was appointed in 1824 to investigate the subject, which
was again taken tap in 1825 and investigate by the
Committee of the other House, and also by a Committee of
their Lordships, and it was from the reports of these
Committees that the Acts originated. A labor:ous and
extensive investigation took place, and various remedies
were suggested for the evils which pressed so heavily
on the country. That investigation was conducted
by men of the greatest ability, industry, and under-
standing, and various witnesses of various classes, who had
the beet opportuniry of being acquainted with the state of
Ireland, were examined. Eminent lawyers were consulted
who were connected by their professional duties, and
otherwise, with the different parts of the country ; several
Roman Catholic Priests : many resident Magistrates, and
land agents, and surveyors were employed by Government ;
men, all of them having the best opportunities of being
thoroughly acquainted with the situation and condition of
the various parts of Ireland, were minutely examined ; and
ale result was, then all, with one voice ascribed, the dis-
turbed state of that country chiefly to the relation which
there existed between landlord arid tenant, to the great and
manifest injury of both parties. The landlords, when
their lands came into their hands, after the expiration
of leases, found them crowded et ith a multitude of
paupers, whom they had no means of removing or pro-
-vidiag for is other places ; and the case was still more
hard on the occupying tens, t, for, perhaps, between
hint and the head landlord there were six or seven
intr.-mediate persona, and each of these, in case of dis-
putes, or in ease of failure in paymints between them-
selves, had the power to distrein on the occupying tenant,
who was thus liable to b.: made to pay his rent repeatedly,
instead of paying it only once. The concurrent testimony
of all wiee that the grand evil was this relation between
landlord and tenant, and in this the reports of the two
Committees] concurred ; and the first remedy recommended
in the report of the Commors was an amendment of the
law between landlord and tenant. In consequence of this
recommendation the Bill was brought into the House of
Commons by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who
was then Secretary for Ireland, assisted by the then At-
torney• General for Ireland. The Bill was brought
in in 1825, and stood over for a Session, and in 1826 it
passed. But it was soon found that those by whom it had
been prepared had fixed their eyes steadily on the existing
evils, and on the application of the remedy, without suffi-
ciently considering the 'effect which the remedy would
have when viewed with reference to the existing state of
the country ; and, therefore, when the Act came into
operation, some blots and errors in it were discovered.
These blots and errors had, however, been most grossly
exaggerated, and a great clamour had been raised by those
whose object it was to excite discontent and animosity
among the people. A great outcry was consequently set
up against the Act ; but it was not to satisfy that cla-
mour, or to give way to the outrages promoted by agi-
tators, that Ministers proposed to bring in another Bill on
the subject. The only object was, to remedy the de-
fects and remove the inconveniences and difficulties of the
existing Act, and to clear up the doubts which had existed
as to its construction. Haying male these preliminary
observations, he would state to the house the most mate-
rial alterations now to he made. The enactments of the
statute were two-fold ; first respecting the leases that
were in existence on and before the passing of the Act in
1826 ; secondly, respecting the leases that might be made
subsequent to the passing of the Act. It was not in-
tended that the Act should be retrospective, nor that it
should hive any operation on the leases in existence at the
time of its passing as to their covenants or waivers
of those covenants, all which covenants and acts it
left as before. But it had been generally under-
stood in Ireland that it had a retrospective effect on
pre-existing leases, and this gave rise to various dis-
putes and to much irritation. At the bar is Ireland, how-
ever, the general opinion was, that it had not a retrospective
operation, but that covenants and waivers were left in
the same condition as before the passing of the Act of
1826. But as there was some doubt on that head, that
doubt was a sufficient reason for passing an enactment fur
its removal. It was intended that the new Bill should be
entirely prospective, and relate only to leases made subse-
quent to its passing, and should not affect, one way or
other, any covenants, or constructive or other waivers
of preceding lease, with reference to any question of sale
or sub-letting. The Bill would leave all the leases to the
ordinary rules of law, whether as to assignment or sub-let-
ting. But where there should be introduced in subsequent
leases covenants against assigning or sub-letting, it W 55 in-
tended that such leases should not be saleable under execu-
ti,nis, nor on bankruptcy, or insolvency of the tenants;
but that the leases should become void, and the land revert
to the landlord. This, perhaps, would be in some measure
retrospective, as far as regarded creditors ; but it was con-
form-able to the spirit of the Act, and he hoped to lie
able to prove in the course of the progress of the Bill, that
there was no injustice in this, and that a mode would be
left open for fraud unlest some such clause was introduced.
Another difficulty was the devolution of leases on in-
testacy. In case of the decease of the lessees without
having made any will their personal representatives,
if they were chattel interests, took the lease,
d this gave occasion to much of that division of lands
which it was se desirable to avoid. It was proposed to
enact that those divisions should not take place on death
and intestacy which the lessees could not make by will.
It wen enacted by the 9th Geo. IV., that the lease when

left by will could be left only to one person, but it left the
case of intestacy unprovided for. By the new Act it was
intended to adopt the provision, that if left to two or
more, it shou'd only be as joint tenants without division
or power of alienation, except among each other. In the
same manner, in cases of intestacy unprovided for by the
firmer Act, it was intended that when leases came as
real property to the heir, or as chattel interest to the next
of kin, that when it happened in either cases that the suc-
cessors were co-heiresses, or there were more than one
next of kin in the same degree, these respectively should
take as joint tenants, and that there should be no division
or alienation except between each other. These were the
most material alterations intended to be made, and he
thought it unnecessary to say more on the subject until
the Bill came under the consideration of their Lordship..
Lord CARBERRY thought the propositions upon the
whole satisfactory ; although there might be shades of dif-
ference in opinion as to some of them. He would render
every assistance in his power in forwarding the Bill.
The Ear! of WICKLOW differed in tuts from his Noble
Friend, as far as he approved of the new 13111; for he
thought the original Act far preferable, and now very seri-
ous alterations ware to be made in it.

Lord FARNHAM agreed, as to the mode of proceed-
ing, that the best was to bring in a nets• Bill, and so to
avoid complexity and confusion.

. .
After a few words from Li.rd MELBOURNE in expla-
nation, the Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be
printed.
The Duke of ARGYLE presented petitions from the
Isle of Skye, and from the Islands of North and South
Wist and Harris, .nd from tbe landlords of kelp estates in
the Hebrides generally, against the repeal of the duty on
barilla.

Lord KING pregented petitions from Clerkenwell, and
from a place in Yorkshire, praying for a ',peal of the as-
sessed tares.

Lord KING presented petitions from Beverley and
several other places, in favour of Reform ; also from New-
castle and Glamorganshire, against the tithe system. Im
doing sn, the Noi:le Lord observed that he had of late
been silent as to the conduct of the Clergy, in the
hope that they would do something to satisfy the
country, but it appeared to him that those delusive 'hope,
were gone for ever. A Noble and Learned Lord, one of
their friends (Lord Tenrerden) had brought in a Biil
which contained a moderate and fair proposition respect-
ing moduses. That Bill all the Right Reverend
Prelates had opposed. One Rev. Prelate, instead of wish-
ing the Bill to be passed shortly, had complained that
there had not been sufficient notice given, and that sixty
years at least ought to expire before the provisions of
the Bill came into effect. For himself be did not consider
that church property would last sixty years.—(Laughing,. )
' But at all events he could see that the church would do
nothing that was fair and reasonable.—(Laughter.)
The Bishop of LINCOLN rose to order, and stated
cleat the Rev. Prelate to whom the Noble Lord had al-
luded
was not then in the House, and it would be better to
defer the discussion till he was present.
' The Bishop of BRISTOL observed that the Noble Lord
Was quite mistaken in what he had represented a Rev.
Prelate to hare said. The time he had stated was three
years, and not sixty. He (the Bishop of Bristol) felt
confident the Noble Lord who had brought forward the
Bill would think fit to make several material alterations
before it passed into a law.
Lord KING, in consequence of what bad fallen front the
Right Rev. Prelate, would move that there be laid before
thi, House an account of the number of suits on account
of tithes commenced in the Courts of Chancery and Ex-
chequer, and in the Courts of Common Law, during the
last forty years. This would show whether incumbents
had been backward or not in asserting their claims to tithes,
or in their efforts to set aside moduses or cotepositialis.
The motion was put and agreed to.
Lord KING then presented petitions from Winstow, in
Somersetshire, and from a district in the county of Carlow,
in lr-land. preying for a commutation of tithes.
Earl GOWER presented a petition from a place in the
county of Chester, praying for the Abolition of Negro
Slavery.—Adj,urned till Monday.