The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-27 00:00:00

SUPPLY.

The House immediately afterwards went into a Committee
of Supply.

A vote of 500,0001. for the relief of the distress in Ireland,
up to the 31st March, was agreed to.
The vo'e of 600,000/. for relief of the destitute in Ireland, by
means of soup kitchens, for the year ending the 31st March,
1848, was then proposed, and agreed to.
The vote of 50,000'. to meet civil contingencies, for the year
ending the 31st March, 1848, was then agreed to.
On the vote of 50,00/. to defray the expenses of the works
on the Houses of Parliament being proposed,
Mr. HUAIE regretted that the building was so unsatisfac-
tory in its architectural designs and the working management.
He hoped they would have a House of Commons without all
the frippery which he saw—frippery which belonged to the time
of Louis Quaterze, without any of the taste characteristic of that
time. The estimate was originally 750,0001., but three times
that sum was found would not now finish them. Who, he
asked, was the responsible person who managed these
works? When and what room were the Members of the
Commons to have in the House of Lords ?

Lord MORPETH said the room provided below the bar
of the New House of Lords was 950 superficial feet, being an
increase of nearly 300 feet over that of the old House.
The vete was then agreed to.
The vote of 20,0001. to defray the charges of the British
Museum, till the 31st March, 1848, was agreed to.
The House then resumed—and Mr. GREENE reported
progress.
AGRICULTURAL TENANT RIGHT BILL.

On the order of the day for going into Committee on this
Bill,
NEWDEGATE said he had been one of the Com-
mittee on this Bill, and he appeared as assenting to the
present form of the Bill. But that happened altogether
through an irregularity, for he did not, and he could not agree
with it. He did not think sufficient inquiry had been made
into the state of agricultural interests, especially the jnterests
of the tenant. There was a strong wish in the north to have
the tenant-right more clearly defined, and the sums to be ap-
portioned for compensation. He must say he was not prepared
to go on with the Bill.

Mr. PUSEY said he was chairman on the Committee,
and that the first day they they met they went through the
Bill except two clauses. The second day they had proceeded
so far that they might have reported that afternoon. They
met afterwards ; an amendment was made and carried, and he
as chairman put it to the Committee that he should report the
Bill as amended, which was carried, and it was also carried
that he should leave the chair. It was not natural after this
that the Committee should be brought together again. He did
not think that the Hon. Gentleman ought to have made the
charge which he did, and expected that he would withdraw it.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said there was a decided misunder-
standing among the Members of the Committee.
Mr. JAMES thought this Bill had been carried through in
a way something like clandestine. It was a Bill which enabled
the ill-minded tenant to rob his landlord more effectually than
he could before.—( Laughter. )
Mr. ACLAND said that the clauses were most maturely
considered, and gone through before the Committee broke up.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN had left the Committee
without understanding that they were to meet again.
Sir R. PEEL said that he was not sure that the Bill itself
would not be improved if the tenant were allowed to claim a
pecuniary remuneration for the improvements effected, but he
thought the House could not legislate upon the subject without,
in the first place, knowing what the practice and custom of
tenant right was in different parts of the country, and secondly,
how far and how they could best give effect to those customs
by a legal enactment. The House was much indebted to the
Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pusey) for the pains he had
taken and the ability he had shown in placing upon a proper
footing the subject of agricultural tenants' rights ; but he
thought the Hon. Member would consider that sufficient con..
sideration had not been given to the measure.
Mr. PUSEY said that it was scarcely fair to introduce a
discussion upon this Bill night after night, and especially by so
practised a debater as his Right Hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel).
There were only twelves clauses in the Bill, and the Commit-
tee had sat three days upon it, giving one hour to each clause.
—( Laughter.) He thought, therefore, that the objections urged
by the Right Hon. Baronet were scarcely tenable.
Sir JOHN TROLLOPE explained the custom as it pre-
vailed in the county of Lincoln, and contended, that as differ-
ent customs prevailed in other counties a more extended inquiry
should be made into the subject before the Bill was introduced.
Sir G. GREY and Sir J. Y. BULLER recommended the
Hon. Member to withdraw his Bill for the present.
Mr. PUSEY could not consent to any postponesneat of the
measure to a remote period.
Mr. HENLEY considered that if any interference were
offered to the Hon. Member's Bill he had himself to blame for
it. The measure should be placed for a second reading on a
Wednesday, when it would be properly discussed, but when
placed on the paper on a Government night it was sure not
to be brought before the House until one or two o'clock in the
morning.
Mr. PUSEY, after a few words in explanation, postponed
his measure to the 21st of April next.
DRAINAGE OF LANDS BILL.
interference with
wanted drainage, drain for themselves.
drainage—let those who
and hoped others would do
ColonelO n the m
so oflnTtHh that
Rt this s
deprecatedßil Bill bere ad
aany second
in
te rt
fi
of tose Bills
which ought not to be taken
other day when it
have been fixed for a Wednesday, or some .
tahstaot,ththatislawteashoonuer, but ought to
likewise. ( ug h t enr .e) a sHe e
consideredha done
Gallant Colonel would not pre-
cmoeuLniodtrodbfeLthflueNtlhcodouisLsceuN.ssheodp.edHtehceoncluded by moving the adjourn-
ment
himself.nt he (neighbourerd fromLne drainingLincoln)
h ad his land because he did. so
forward the Bill at
the urgent request of a vast number of landowners. If the
Gallant Colonel persisted in his motion, he should postpone the
second reading.
Colonel SIBTHORP said he should persist in his motion.
Sir JOHN TROLLOPE said the Bill was greatly re-