The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-11 00:00:00

DECCAN BOOTY.

Mr. HUME asked whether the ten lacks of rupees
lately paid by the India House as a final settlement of
interest and unpaid balances of the Deccan booty, are to
be immediately distributed to all the claimants generally,
or whether those who claim for actual capture would be
paid in preference to those who claim for constructive
capture ?
Sir JOHN CAM HOBHOUSE relied, that it was P
quite true that during the course of last year a final
adjustment took place between the court of directors
and the trustees with respect to the sum to be paid, and
he understood that Mr. Arbuthnot would lose no time in
seeing that the distribution took place. With regard to
the question as to who was to be paid first he could gibe
no information.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
Mr. THORNELY said he wished to ask a question
of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the
Board of Trade with regard to a Bill promised last year
to enable joint stock companies to wind up their concernsbeen
He wished to know whether any progress had
made with the Bill, and whether it was likely soon to be
submitted to the House.
Mr. M. GIBSON replied that the Bill was in prepa.
ration, and some legal provisions had been submitted to
the consideration of the Lord Chancellor. He had every
hope that at no distant period the Bill would be sub-
mitted to the House.
WASTE LANDS IRELAND.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN gave notice that, to-morrow,
he would ask a question of the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government, as to whether, in the event of
a company being formed for the reclamation of the
waste lands of Ireland, the Noble Lord would fa-
cilitate the acquisition of the powers by which it was
proposed to effect that object.
Dr. BOWRING put off his motion relative to public
accounts till this day fortnight.
Mr. CHRISTIE also postponed
of Oxford and Cambridge
till the same day.
NOTICES OF MOTION.
Mr. WADDINGTON gave notice of his intention to
bring in a Bill for the regulation of the law relating to
small tenements.
tnhclea y
Foods Lord COURTNEY gave notice of his intention to
move an amendment to the Poor Relief Bill in
Committee.
THE WELLINGTON STATUE.
y any
the co mmitte
Tids andto the Forests
Governmentw hetherb
Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY gave notice that, on
Monday next, he would ask the Noble Lord at the head
of
e
communication
had been made of
the Wellir t
g on statue with respect to the removal of
the
scaffoldingr round the statue; and, if it was to be
, at whose expense the removal was to take
place?

Lord CASTLEREAGH presented a petition from a
place in the county of Down .gainst
_
the able-bodied poor in Ireland ; as, extending relief to
in the opinion of
the petitioners, it would tend to increase improvident
marriages, and lead to the confiscation of the property
of the country. They also
should be approved of by the House, that the extension
prayed that if such a measure
of such relief should be optional with the board of
guardians,
Mr. SMITE' O'BRIEN presented a petition from the
fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters of those who had
fallen victims to the famine in Newport, county Mayo,
prn.yint7 that iminec.l:;ate inPasures ;.,;: r.,.!,:,1 ,:.! :it:Ty Dili;
Liaorti,lity among the peop!e.
Mr. MILLS pre.i,,r,toci a petition frt,:t ii!-p,i.:; U!,.l:i,t,
against the Your Removal Act of last session. Also a
duty on tea.
petition from Bristol) in favour of the reduction of the

TEN HOURS' BILL.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented several petitions
from mill•owners and others, in favour of this Bill.
IRISH MEASURES.

Mr. ROEBUCK wished to ask the Noble Lord a
question. There were now before the House four Bills
respecting Ireland. One they might consider to have
been disposed of—he meant the Bill for the immediate
relief of the destitute poor of Ireland, which had one
through Committee, and which might, therefore, be con-
sidered to have received the consent of that House.
Then there was the Bill to indemnify the Government
for their departure from the Irish Labour Act of last
year. Besides these Bills there were the Poor-law Bill
and the Bill for granting loans of money to the owners
of land in Ireland. What he wished to know was,
whether the Poor-law Bill would proceed pari passu
with the Landlords' Bill, or whether he proposed to
carry them separately?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, in reply to the ques-
tion of the Honourable Gentlt man, he had to inform
him that it was the intention of the Government that
the two last Bills—the Poor-law Bill, and the Bill for
lending money to the proprietors of land, should proceed
together. He could not say the particular days on which
they would be taken, or whether one would be taken
before the other, but be should wish to have them read a
third time almost simultaneously by the House.—(Hear.)
He was anxious to have them read on days so
closely following each other, that they might be sent up
to the other House of Parliament, as nearly as possible
at the same time.—(Hear.) He considered that the one
measure should be decided at the same time as the other
—(Hear, hear)—for if the one failed in its object, it
could not prove otherwise than detrimental to the other.
IRISH POOL-LAW BOARD.
Mr. SHAW desired to know, before the permanent
Poor-law Bill came into opera;;ion, what was the or-
ganization which the Noble Lord proposed to affect in the
new poor-law board, especially as it related to Ireland.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that a short Bill arranging
the organization of that board was now under con-
sideration of the Government. Amidst the hurry of bu-
siness he had not been able to examine its provisions,
but they would bring it forward on a very early day.
RAILWAY PLAN FOR IRELAND.
Colonel WOOD desired to know whether the Noble
Lord, the Member for Lynn, would bring forward his
Bill for a system of railways for Ireland.
Lord G. BENTINCK said that it entirely depended
upon the business of the House.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said it was the wish of the Irish
Members that the Noble Lord would defer it until
Tuesday next.
MONEY TO IRISH RAILWAYS.
Colonel OSBORNE desired to know what sum of
money had been granted for the earthworks of the
Limerick and Waterford Railway ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he could not answer the question off hand.
PRESENTMENTS IN IRELAND.
Sir H. BARRON wished to know why the Board of
Works had delayed to send down drainage surveyors to
carry into operation the sums of money which had been
advanced under the Act commonly called Mr. Labou-
chere's Act. He hoped that his Right Hon. Friend
would explain to the House why the delay had taken
place.

Mr. LABOUCFIERE said, that unless he had the re-
port of the Board of Works he could not give a distinct
answer. The Board of Works had been obliged to
delay longer than they could have wished the examina-
tions necessary to the presentments before the money
could be advanced to carry them out, as, in many in-
stances, there had been a difficulty in finding competent
surveyors to undertake the works. The Board of Works
itself was most anxious to facilitate the works.
Mr. W. COLLETT wished to press the question
already asked by an Hon. Member. Ile wished to know
whether any advance bad been made to the Limerick
and Waterford Railway?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that in order to answer the Hon. Gentleman it was ne-
cessary that he should read the Treasury Minute which
had sanctioned the advance.—(Hear.) The Minute
stated that the Commissioners of the Public Works
had, with regard to a portion of the line for which
the authority of Parliament had been obtained, advanced
sums of money for the execution of the earthworks ;
and with regard to that portion of the line for which the
authority of Parliament had not been obtained, and of
which it was intended to alter the course as soon as the
consent of all the landholders should have been obtained,
the money necessary for the earth works would be
advanced.
COMPENSATION TO IRISH TENANTS.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD moved the following
resolution, of which he had given notice :—That it ap-
pears to this Rouse, from the reports of various Com-
mittees and Commissions, that the system generally
adopted in times past in the letting and management of
landed property in Ireland, has been one of the main
causes of the present distressed state of that coun-
try, and the disordered state of its social relations ;
and that no measures can be effectual in producing
a demand for labour, or improving the condition of
the people, which shall not include such an amendment
of the laws of landlord and tenant as shall give to the
improving tenant in occupation a sufficient permanency
of tenure, or else establish the tenant's right to claim
by law full compensation for all benefits created by the
expenditure of his labour and capital on the pre-
mises in his occupation. The question, be said, had
often been asked, what were the causes of the
evils which afflicted Ireland, and who were responsible
for them, that as yet no solution of the matter had been
arrived at, nor did it seem to be understood. He had
therefore been induced to draw the attention of the
House to show how far these evils had resulted
from the relation that had existed between land-
lord and tenant, and to what extent the pro-
prietors of Ireland were responsible for them. If
ever there was a time when inquiry was needed the
present was the moment, when they were voting such
large sums of money for the relief of the people of Ire-
land, and when, he regretted to say, Irish Members were
opposing a poor-law, and throwing off a responsi-
bility to which they were justly subject. It was
with pain that he had seen a resolution, signed
by the name of a leadirg Irish „Peer, declaring itself
opposed to the moderate proposition of the Noble
Lord for the relief of the people of that country, and in
which the measure empowering relieving officers to
grant out door relief under certain circumstances was
reprobated. With such circumstances before them, it was
right that they should inquire into how far the landed
proprietors of Ireland were responsible for the state of
things which prevailed. The first portion of the resolu-
tion he had to submit was as follows :—" That it appears
to this House that from the reports of various Commit-
tees and Commissioners, that the system generally
adopted in times past, in the letting and management
of landed property in Ireland, has been one of the
main causes of the present state of the country."
As he had made this assertion it was his duty to bring
before the House some portion of the evidence on which
he based that assertion, but he would confine his obser-
vations within very narrow limits. The Land
Commission, in their report, referred to thirteen
reports of former committees, after instancing
the large possessions in the hands of a few individuals
they referred to the penal laws, the forty-shilling free-
hold franchise, and they concluded with the following
observations :—" That whatever difference of opinion
was put forward and maintained on other points,
the testimony of all witnesses concurred in this, that
the great evils under which Ireland laboured were to be
traced to the want of proper employment, felt by a large
proportion of the agricultural labourers of that country.
The Committee of 1830, on referring to the multiplied
evils of Ireland, said they conceived it was the duty of
individuals, as well as of the Legislature, to consider
what means ought to be taken to diminish this mass of
suffering, and they suggested that by promoting the
better management of estates, and regulating the
arrangements between landlords and tenants, on a
national principle, that good might be effected.
So much for the general condition of the country. He
would now refer to the important evidence of Mr. Lesley
Foster and of Mr. Betchworth, in the year 1825. The
former witness traced a considerable portion of the evils
affecting land to the want of encouragement given to
tenants in building, repairing, or draining ; and the
latter gentleman gave evidence that the landlords of Ire-
land were wanting in the kindness and generosity
which so eminently possessed the English proprietor.
There were strong proofs that the evils of Ireland had
been produced by the misconduct of the Irish landlords.
The first who introduced the middle men were the land-
lords, for they were not introduced by the tenants on the
several properties. And what was the evil con-
sequence of the introduction of these middle men ?
Why, another evil of almost equal magnitude
—that of subdivision. Then there was another
evil, that of eon-acre. These middle men let houses to
the poor people without any land, and these people were
therefore obliged to take land for the sake of the poor
people, and the consequence of this was the increased
population of the country, the non-drainage of estates,
low wages, which could neither support the men nor
their families, bad houses, and general distress, and
the still further result of a tax on the lands
of England. But there were evil consequences in
another way, for whilst the poor people were starving
they were absolutely sending corn out of the country,
to the extent of two millions and a half of quarters. He
found by the returns that in the first six months of
1846, the exports of corn from Ireland amounted to
1,776,000 quarters, while the imports of the Government
amounted to only 118,000 quarters during the same period.
The gentlemen did not return to the people to give
profitable employment, and the result was that the pro-
prietor did not employ the people—the farmers did not
employ the people, and the occupiers did not employ the
people, and the people did not work for themselves because
they had not the proper remuneration for their labour.
There could be no doubt that the want of
source of
security for the
tenant with regard to their lands was a feeble
misery to the people. There were two counties,
_ one in
the south, and another in the north of Ireland, between
which he would make a comparison ihneerneefeerf those,redto tthhee
counties of Down and Limerick, and
distressed condition of the people arose entirely from the
small holdings having no security for their tenure.
Down, holding from
The number of farmers in
one to five acres, was 14,000, and in Limerick
it was only 7,000. The number of farms in Down,
from 5 to 15 acres in extent was 11,000, and in Lime-
rick the farms of the same description amounted to
7,000. The number of farms over 30 acres in Down
was 15,000, and in Limerick 300, and yet in Limerick
the presentment amounted to 186 ,000, andin Down to
2.97 G. Farms were more subdivided in Down than in
Limerick, and yet it was more prosperous, as, by the
custom of the country there was a. proper security to the
improvement he might make in his lands.
tenant for any
to ,lcvati, the condition of the people of
The only way
in,Ltud, was s,„•earnig them. a nlyett.,attou for any
4„obt tney 10). t here was a preval-nt
teeliog in certain quarters that small lettings should be
done away with; that no one should be the farmer of

land unless he had held the plough. But how
could they ever expect the labourers to rise unless
there were different sizes of farms. In the county of
Down the benefit of small lettings had proved to be
moss beneficial. The tenant right for which he con-
tended was such, that the holder of land was not re-
quired to give up possession without receiving from the
proprietor the value of the improvements lie had
made. He could also sell the improvements to
any tenant that might follow. What would
England and Scotland do in the harvest sew-on,
if it were not for the Irish labourer? He was no
advocate for small holdings as they existed in seme parts
of Ireland. He was no admirer of cotter tt nants
but he did maintain that a considerable degree of the
prosperity of the north of Ireland depended on the
division of land into small but reasonably-sized farms.
—(Hear.) With reference to the system of mid-
dlemen, he held that it was one which destroyed all
confidence between the landlord and tenant, which
repressed all Improvement, and was a fruitful cause of
the miseries of Ireland. No security was given by the
middleman to the tenant, and he could not claim one
from the landlord as the middleman stood between them.
Unless they passed a law for the iwprovement of land-
lord and tenant, it would be of little use to pass a law
for the relief of the destitute poor of that country; and
unless there was such a law passed, it would be
utterly useless to do anything else, and there would
be an end to all improvement, and an entire loss
of all the labour and the expense which had
been incurred. He did say that there was a greater
evil than that of the absentee landlords, for he
could say, from his personal knowledge, that
the properties of many of the absentee landlords
were in a far better condition than those of the resident
landlords. The people were better housed, better fed,
and in a better condition on those estates. It was said
by the Irish landlords, that if the rates were levied that
they would never be paid, but, if the poor people were
unable to pay the rates, why did not the landlords pay
the rates themselves. If they did so, then would they ob-
tain the good-will of the people of this country, and would
be held worthy of the money which had been contributed,
and the assistance which had been rendered by this
country. He did not 'swish to say one word that would
be offers ive to the Irish landlords, but in the course of
bringing this sub'ectbefore the house, he challenged them
to throw off the responsibility which theirposition imposed
Ile was thankful to the House for the indulgence which
it had shown to him. He trusted that the landed
proprietors would not shrink from their responsibility.
He hoped that the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government would give him a pledge that some
amendment of the law of landlord and tenant would be
effected.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped that he would tell
him that such a measure was one of those which in-
tended to introduce.

Sir D. NORREYS said that unless it could be made
the interest of the landlords to give security to their
tenants, it would be wholly useless to expect any move-
ment on their part to effect what was so much desired.
In order to induce the landlords to give leases
he would take away the stamp duties, and he
thought also that it was absolutely necessary that
all local taxation should be thrown upon
the landlords, where there were not leases for at
least twenty or thirty years. On this subject, he did
think it would be of some interest to the House to
give its attention to the opinion of a foreigner, who had
probably observed Ireland, and had written better on
Ireland than any other person, and who probably knew
the condition of Ireland better. He referred to Mr.
De Beaumont, wh3 thought the uncertainty of tenure
in Ireland was the main-spring of moat of the evils that
afflicted it.—(Hear, hear.)
ilr. TUIT'E then addressed the House, but was for
some time inaudible, from the confusion which prevailed.
He was firmly persuaded that no benefit would accrue to
Ireland till they had generally a resident, instead of an
absentee, pr,prietary. He altogether denied the a,ser-
don which had been made by some Hun. Members in
that House, that the property of absentees was as well
managed as the estates of the resident gentry. From
experience he knew this was not the case.
Lord CASTLEREAGH wished to call the attention
of the House very shortly to the observations of the
Honourable Memoer for Rochdale. He gave credit
to the Honourable Member for the best inten-
tions, but he might be permitted to say
that the - improvements in the county to which
he had the honour to belong were increasing, chile
the tenantry experienced a freedom from distress
which was gratifying to those interested in what
—in the welfare of the country. He would
beg to say, in one word, why he could
not support the resolution of the Hon. Member for
Rochdale. Hon. Gentlemen in that House r, ere too
much accustomed to look on Ireland as they
would upon a county, and to entertain the
opinion that whatever measure would suit that county
would be equally suitable for the whole of Ireland.
Hon. Gentlemen were not perhaps aware that the systems
of agriculture were widely different in different
parts of the country. Were the measure of the
Honourable Member for Itc.chdale therefore, car-
ried in that House, it would involve the greatest
mischief to the landed property in that count'. Ile
trusted that without a legislative enactment tke
improvements, which were going on in the
north,'would extend into the south, and that the relations
between the proprietors of the soil and the tenants would
be earried out in a spirit of liberalty.
Colonel CONNOLLY rose, and was
[LEFT SPEAKING.]
-.rE.

__,LECTION RUMOURS.—We are requested by Si
Howard Elphinstone's agent to state, in the most unqualified
terms, that there is not the slightest truth whatever in the
rumour that the Hon. Baronet has resigned his seat, or that
he has intimated his intention of resigning it..—Sussex Ad-
vertiser.

Baron Pasquier, sen., first surgeon of the King,
inspecting surgeon and member of the Board of Health of
the Army. and Commander of the Legion of Honour, died on
Saturday, after a long illness, in his 74th year. The funeral
ceremony took place on Monday, at twelve o'clock, at the
church of St. L-Juis d'Antin. —Paris paper.