The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, June 21.
SUSPENDED WRITS.—CHELTENHAM.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. SLANEY said he did not know what were to be the
provisions of the Bill to be brought on by his Honourable
Friend the Member for Droitwich, but from the well-known
it
ability
wouldof h
hi sefound Hon.ood effectual
Friend h f
he hador
he the highestreeo
prevention o
expectationso f
bribery.
him,With d
irde sopoetc ts
eteo t thhaits t
hc
ears h
ee
weree, slike e
ehe ot
gHon.grounds
ofd3sa Baronet et below
continu-
ing
the suspension of this writ, and he should, therefore, sup-
port the motion.
Sir DE LACEY EVANS opposed the issuing of the writ.
He thought that this, of all others, was not a time for the
House to appear even to be aiding to screen bribery at elec-
tions, and for that reason he, however painful to his own feel-
ings, would oppose the motion.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD supported the motion. He
did not think that justice would be done in this case, because
the four cases of bribery reported to have been committed had
been traced to the agents and not tc, the late Member per-
sonally. He thought, therefore, there was no case against
Cheltenham. and therefore he should support the motion.
Mr. HENLEY coincided in every word said by the Hen.
and Learned Member opposite. Suppose that bribery was
practised in the West-Riding of Yorkshire, with its 30 000
electors, would the House affirm the proposition that these
30,003 electors should be deprived of their rights because a
case of treating had been proved against one of their Mem-
bers ? They must take extreme cases to try the soundness of
the proposition, and tried by this standard, the proposition to
suspend the writs in every case until a Commission should have
reported in such case, was proved an absurdity. He should
seajßBux.ii PBAtlghlprlihnalor
ittor.
together,
iortHgß,naiteio.hunt
Hon, the
ermie:Sts:ho. Bs)et
tuioolls:nnußee.sfteeNthreti
eerEt
book,
saidorp Secretary
ktf,to
for
thatngf dh the Home
eh
nHet
cho.eAr
on
ireeca
mo,,
brr,
e gse h pursuedi
fmo r Department
tol
bn
wasrt
i bybring
mg( eit.
11-tubseiyngvitrhtuealHlyeanb.aßndatriroinetelt,hiams and his
ar
the suspended boroughs. He did not intend to say a word
against this motion, but he could assure the country that no
reform need be expected from the present Ministry, and it was
perhaps just as well that things should get as bad as they
could, that the country itself might force a reform all the
sooner.
Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL referred to the
evidence in the case of the Cheltenham election, and
contended that only one part of the evidence might be
taken as denoting an extensive system of bribery.
If, therefore, they confounded this case with instances of ex-
tensive corruption, they would be doing great injury to the
cause of purity of election, and he certainly should vote for the
issuing of the writ.
Mr. NEWDEGATE denounced the conduct of Govern-
ment in reference to this question as vaccilating anti unjust, and
called upon the House at once to put an end to this abominable
system of partial disfranchisement.
Colonel SIBTHORP, in supporting the motion for issuing
the writ, announced that he was highly delighted at the pros-
pect there was of the Borough Elections Bill being eventually
thrown out.

Sir JOHN PARING TON gave it as his opinion that in
all cases where there was no special report from the Election
Committee the writ ought not to be suspended, and hoped
Gcvernment would no longer persist in delaying the issuing of
the writs in the case of boroughs similarly situated to Chel-
tenham.

The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the issuing of the writ
Against it ... 47
Majority in favour of it —l2
The writ was accordingly ordered to be issued.
TENANTS-AT-WILL (IRELAND) BILL.
On the question for going into Committee on this Bill being
put,
Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND, in bringing the provisions
of the Bill under the consideration of the House, went
at great length into the present condition of Ireland,
remarking that the past legislation of the House
had greatly tended to detract from the position of
the aristocracy, to degrade the priesthood, and debase the
people. The majority of the Irish inhabitants were paupers
upon the land, while the priesthood being deprived of an
honest mode of living, by the operation of the present church
system, were reduced to the state of beggars living upon
the contributions they levied upon their poor flocks. From
the same cause, a Factice had gradually grown up
in Ireland of requiring the tenant to make great
sacrifices in favour of his landlord. For instance, in this
country the laws passed in relation to the position of landlord
and tenant invariably went upon the principle of protecting
the tenant against the encriachments of the landlord, but in
Ireland the contrary was the case. In this country it was the
invariable practice for the landlord to provide his tenant
with farm-houses, but in Ireland the tenant had to
build them himself, and it frequently happened
that tenants were evicted by wholesale without any
compensation being allowed to them for the labour and capital
they might have expended in building barns, out-houses, and
other farm tenements. Now the object of this Bill was to re-
form this state of things. It would provide that no tenant-at-
will should be ejected by his landlord without having repara-
tion made to him for the labour and capital he had expended
in the erection of buildings for improving the property.
Alr. S. CRAWFORD said the people of Ireland demanded
to have the rights of tenants fully secured by law, and no pro-
position which did not lead to the accomplishment of that
object would be acceptable in that country. He assured
the House that unless the present Bill was very
much improved in Committee, it would not be
adequate for the object it was intended to accomplish, and
would not give satistaet on to the people of Ireland. It was
impossible to expect landowners to lay out money in the im-
provement of estates so long as there was no security given to
them for a return upon the capital they had so invested. He
would support the motion for going into Committee, but at the
same time he trusted that the House would make such im-
provements as would render the 8.11 more acceptable.
Lord CLAUD HAMILTON deprecated the course which
had been taken on the subject of tenant-right by the Hon.
Member, who, he said, had gone round the country, and orga-
nized an agitation in a small form, solely for the purpose of
attending public dinners, and making himself popular. The
result of his conduct had been to disturb the minds of the
people of Ireland on a subject upon which they had previously
entertained little doubt or difference of opinion, and thus
created great discontent in that country.
Mr. FAGAN said the Noble Lord had made an unjustifi-
able attack upon the Hon. Member ( Mr. S Crawford), than
whom there was not a better landlord! in Ireland. He did not
think that the Bill would have the effect of doing away with all
the evils existing in Ireland, but he considered that it would
do much good.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE stated the objections which he en-
tertained towards the Bill. It made it c impulsory, he said,
for a landlord, before he could get possession of his property,
to repay the tenants all the money they had laid out on
their farms, whether they owed any arrears or not, and the
effect of such a provision, he considered, would be to make
landlords purchase their estates over again. The Hon. Mem-
ber alluded to several other objectionable parts of the Bill, and
concluded by moving an amendment that they should go into
Committee that day six months.
Mr. P. SCROPE, being a member upon the Committee
up stairs to which the subject of tenant-right was referred,
should abstain voting on the question before the House,
although he approved of the object of the Bill. He trusted
tiefore the conclusion of the session that some measure would
be introduced which would place the relation between
landlord and tenant upon a more equitable footing, and until
some such measure was passed, there would be no peace, or se.
curitv to life and property in Ireland, and this country would
still be invaded by destitute Irish,to the injury of our own po.
pulat ion.
After a few observations from Mr. Herbert, Colonel Co..
nolly, Sir G. Grey. and Mr. Anstey,
Mr. MONSELL informed his Hon. Friend the Member
for West Sarrey, that the Committee on the Landlord and
Tenant Bill were going over the clauses of that Bill with the
greatest care and attention, and he asked the House therefore,
not to give its support to another and a rival Bill until it
should at le st have disposed of the other.
Air. H. DRUADIOND withdrew his Bill until the decision
of the Committee on Sir William Somerville's Bill should
',ie. obtained.

The &II was accordinzly withdrawn.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL.

The House then went into Committee.on'th—is—iii-11:

After a short discussion on clause 1, which applies to the
payment of rates, the Committee divided, when there
appeared--
For the retention of the clause
Against it
Majority
The Bill Went through Committee, and the report was
ordered ti be brought up on Friday.
LANDED PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was postponed till a future day.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARI ABLE TRUSTS BILL.

This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted.

The dropped orders of the day were re-appointed, and the
House adjourned at Five o'clock.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
(YESTERDAY.)
HOUSE OF LORDS.

GROUP No. I.—EAST INDIAN RAILWAY INCORPO-
RATD,N.—PreambIe proved, and Bill ordered to be re-
ported.

SHEFFIELD, MANCHESTER, AND LiNcor.xsuinE (Junc-
tion with Midlands, via Barn,ley, and Branches there-
Irom).—Evidefice for promoters.
SOUTH YORKSHIRE, DONCASTER, AND YORK AMEND•
MENT (Extension to Penstone and Alteration in Dods-
worth Branch).—Evidence in favour of promoters.