The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-01 00:00:00

IRELAND.

Lord BROUGHAM said that before the prorogation,
he was desirous of calling the attention of the Ilouse to
the state of Ireland, and for that purpose he would, on
Thursday next, move that there be laid on the table the
proclamation of the Lord-Lieutenant for the apprehen-
sion of political offenders, when he would take the op-
portunity of stating his views with regard to Ireland ge-
nerally. He expressed the hope, however, that Govern-
ment would consider whether, in the present state of the
country, it was expedient to have any prorogation at all.
He might add, that in the course of a few days—perhaps
before Thursday evening—they might see the civil war
which was now threatened, completely checked, and in
that case his motion would be unnecessary, and in that
case he should not bring it on.

—The Earl of GLENGALL wished to ask a question
of her Majesty's Government, relative to a subject of
much importance. On the 19th instant a meeting of
delegates was held in Dublin, when a resolution was
carried that an t.ttempt should be made to subvert Bri-
tish dominion in Ireland. At that meeting three or
four magistrates of the borough of Kilkenny attended
as a deputation from the town of Kilkenny. He begged
leave to ask whether those persons were still in the
commission of the peace? The words of the resolution
were similar to a declaration of war, and were of a highly
treasonable nature. The magistrates, in many parts of
Ireland, were swearing in special constables, and if those
magistrates, to whom he alluded, should be equally active,
there was great danger of clubbists being sworn in as
special constables.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he was unable
to state whether those gentlemen had been removed from
the commission of the peace, but he gave the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government in Ireland, and the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland, credit for being alive to the
proceedings of persons entrusted with such an important
trust.

EVICTED DESTITUTE POOR (IRELAND) BILL.
Thu Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved that their
Lordships should not adhere to the amendments they
had made in this Bill. He did not expect there would be
any opposition to the motion, as the other House of Par-
liament had unanimously adopted the original provisions
of the Bill.

Lord MONTEAGLE objected that such important
matters should be disposed of without discussion. The
question'at issue was whether the guardians should have
notice forty-eight ;hours before the eviction took place,
or twelve hours after, and whether the names of the jus-
tices should be specified, or merely the lands. He
thought the specification of the lands only would not be
the best course in order to discover who the parties were
to be relieved. Their Lordships' amendments required
that the names of the parties should be given, and he
thought they should adhere to that. He should say non-
content.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that they
were obliged to give notice that the writ was to be

executed, —and that would display the names of the
parties as well as the lands. It would be useless to
give notice twelve hours after the eviction, at a place
twenty miles distant, as would be frequently the case
after these persons were destitute and house-
less. It was the habit in Ireland to collect rents under
the threats of notices to quit, which was a state of rural
economy which should be put a stop to. It would be
more becoming their dignity to agree to the amend-
ments unanimously agreed to by the House of Commons.
He should move that they should not rest upon their
amendments to the Bill.

Lord BEAUMONT thought it would be better for the
poor that the notice should be given twelve hours after
eviction, and that the Commons had made a mistake in
adopting the other principle.
The Marquis of L ANSDOWNE said he could not
agree with the Noble Lord that the Commons were
wrong. The names were nothing without they could
ascertain the particulars of the case, which they could
not do unless previous notice had been given, in order to
find who were the parties entitled to relief. Without
this notice the parties might starve in the interval.
The motion was then put and agreed to.
INCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the adoption of
the Commons' amendments to this Bill. The object of
the amendments was to provide for the sale of incum-
bereil estates without the intervention of the Court of
Chancery. He felt assured that it would only be neces-
sary to convince their Lordships that this could be done
with safety, to induce them to adopt them. The provi-
sions would effect that, as the parties selling under this
Bill would be bound to give notice to all parties inte-
rested, and when all parties concurred the sale could
take place, but if any objected they could take excep-
tion, and bring forward their objections in the Court of
Chancery, where, if they were found satisfactory, the
sale would be prevented; but when the sale took place,
with the concurrence of all parties interested, there
would be a valuation previously made of the estate by a
surveyor appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant. The sale
when effected would constitute a good legal title against
all claimants. The Noble and Learned Lord was under-
stood to conclude by recommending that their Lordships
should agree to the Commons' amendments.
Lord STANLEY minutely reviewed the circumstances
connected with the Bill from the period of its
.introduc-
tion to the House of Lords down to the present time,
and gave it as his opinion that the measure now assumed .
a totally different aspect from that which presented
when their Lordships unanimously adopted it. In point
of fact, the Bill was not amended, but materially altered.
It was a new Bill, many of the original provisions hav•
ing been completely suspended, and alterations effected
by the Solicitor-General, who declared that the measure,
in the shape prepared by the Lord Ohane!llor on the
part of the Government, was incapable of being worked.
This he considered as a most inconvenient course of
legislation between the two houses of Parliament.
It was highly inconvenient that at the end of a pro-
tracted session they should receive a Bill so altered in
its character, and have those alterations recommended
for their assent by the Noble and Learned Author of
the Bill. Upon the ground too that many Irish Peers were
necessarily absent from Parliament, attending to high and
important duties in Ireland, he objected to the considera-
tion of the amendments at the present time, involving as
they did twenty-three new clauses, and the alteration of
several of its old clauses. If the Bill inits new form
had to pass through the various stages of first, second, i
and third readings, report, and committee, then indeed,
his objection might be regarded as trivial; but when
they were by one vote to come to a conclusion as to the
adoption or non-adoptiori of the measure, he thought he
was quite right in designating the present an incon-
venient mode of legislation; and in protesting against
the further progress of the Bill, until the return of the
Irish Peers, who had given their assent to the measure
in a totally different form. He desired their Lordships
also to bear well in mind, that there was not a single
Peer or Member of the other House of Parliament pre-
pared to pass the Bill, who was willing that it should be
applied to England or Scotland; yet the English
and Scotch Peers, in the absence of the Irish Peers,
were called upon to pass the Bill, and to legislate
in.
a manner and on a principle respecting the sale
of incumbered estates in Ireland, which they 'were
not prepared either to advert or to advocate for them •
selves. The measure was so altered from the original,
and so completely changed in detail, that ho thought it
would not be an unreasonable proposition if he were to
move that the Commons' amendments be referred to the
consideration of a Select Committee, to report on their
technical as well as practical effect. If he saw any dis-
position exhibited to adopt their suggestions, he should
make a specific motion on the subject.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that, after the speech
of the Noble Lord, he was quite prepared to have heard
him moving the rejection of the amendments, instead of
their reference to a Select Committee. He thought they
should agree to the amendments of the Commons, and
he was confirmed in this view by the statement of the
Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, who recom•
mended their adoption, inasmuch as the changes effected
were not of that material character to affect the principle
of the measure. Under the circumstances, ho did not
think there was any necessity for the attendance of
Irish Peers to consider these amendments, because, in
addition to other reasons, it would be tantamount to a
postponement of all legislation on the subject until next
session of Parliament.
Lord MONTEAGLE thought that the Noble Lord
opposite (Lord Stanley) had rather under than over-
stated the objections to the amendments, and although