The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-21 00:00:00

Wo ur laWon

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
SUSPENDED WRITS.—CHELTENHAM.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
Mr. SLANEY said he did not know what were to be the
provisions of the Bill to be brought on by his Honourable
With respect to this case he, like the Hon. Baronet below
him, did not see that there were sufficient grounds for continu-
ing the suspension of this writ, and he should, therefore, sup-
he
w
t
Yt h
iEs
,VoAf Na
others,oppose opposed
wasthe
notissuing
a t of
m ethe o
rwrit.
pHiaFtobeisi
trnttohhyduDoelott:Emfgh hehoLhittseAl:Htlfnhceon.amEunt
found
de
Fr
effectual
forffieencdDtuhr:el thwf aoidre ht be
highestu
prevention
e fromven
te
iaot the
expectations
owt
af et
tHi
oonurs,ea tod appearfr t
ha
te
reason
otno
he, b e
however aiding
painful screen
tbor ihbieary
ownlat elec-
tions, lec
bribery.tohwant
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 to 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 in the West-
Riding of Yorkshire, with its 30,000 electors, the House
would affirm the proposition that these 30,000 electors should be
deprived of their rights because a case of treating had been
proved against one of their members. They must take ex-
treme 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 support the motion.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said that the course pursued by the
eprartfmorenFtliwnast most
John Hanmer) on the book, and encouraging him to bring in
extraordinary.Ri gh tHon . t e SecretaryAftAfter
pu
patting
g the
the Homee
Member
a Bill on this subject, they virtually abandoned him and his
Bilt together, thus ill-using the Hon. Baronet, as well as
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 would 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 oily 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 denonnced the conduct of Govern-
ment in reference to this question as vacilating and 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 PACKINGTON gave it as bis opinion that in
all cases where there was no:special report from the Election
Committee the writ ought not to be suspended, and hoped
•Government 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

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 sill 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
s►stem, were reduced to the state of beggars living upon
the contributions they levied upon their poor flocks. From
the same cause, a practice had gradually grown up
in Ireland of requiring fthe tenant to make great
sacrifices in favour of his landlord. For instance, in this
country the laws passed in relation to this question of landlord
and tenant invariably went upon the principle •f protecting
the tenant against the encroachments 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 freqeently 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 fur improving the property.
111 r. 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 satisfaction 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 Bill more acceptable.
Lord CLAUDE 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 midi 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 whioh they had previously
entertained little doubt or difference of opinion, and thus cre-
ated great discontent in that country.
Mr. FAGAN said the Noble Lord had made an unjustifi-
able attack upon the lion. 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 compulsory, 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, he
should abstain voting on the question before the House,
although he approved of the object of the Bill. He trusted
before 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-
pulation.

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 Surrey, 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 under rival Bill until it
should at least have disposed of the other.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND withdrew his Bill until the decision
of the Committee on Sir William Sommerville's Bill should
be obtained.

The Bill was accordingly withdrawn.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
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 ...... 47
Majority
The Bill went through Committee, and the report was
ordered to be brought up on Friday.
LANDED PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was postponed till a future day.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITABLE 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.
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
GROUP No. I.—EAST INDIAN RAILWAY INCORPO-
RATION.—PreambIe proved, and Bill ordered to bo re-
ported.
SHEFFIELD, MANCHESTER, AND LINCOLNSHIRE (Junc-
tion with Midlands, via Barnsley, and Branches there-
from).—Evidence for promoters.
SOUTH YORKSHIRE, DONCASTER, AND YORK AMEND.
MENT (Extension to Penstone and Alteration in Dods.
worth Branch).—Evidence in favour of promoters.

ROUSE OF COMMONS.
GROUP NO. 3. MANCHESTER, BUXTON, AND
MIDLANDS JUNCTION (Deviation and Branches. Case
closed, but decision postponed.
GROUP NO. 7.—ROYSTON AND lllTcuril (Exten-
sion to Cambridge and Branches).—Clauses agreed to,
and Bill ordered to be reported.
GROUP No. B.—EXETER AND COWLEY BRIDGE
JUNCTlON.—Evidence in favour of promoters.
LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN (Exeter and Crediton,
Taw Vale Railway and Dock, and Bodmin and Wade-
bridge Railway Companies' Arrangements.)—Opposi-
tion of the Bristol and Exeter Company further consi-
dered. In consequence of the indisposition of the chair-
man this Group adjourned till Monday.
GROUP NO. 11.—MONRLAND AND KIRKINTILLOCH,
BALLOCHNEY, AND SLAMANNAN (Amalgamation or Sale
or Lease, and Amendment or Repeal of Acts).—The
promoters having entered into a compromise with the
opponents, the Committee passed the preamble, and the
clauses having been agreed to, the Bill was ordered to
be reported.

The Rev. Sir Henry Thompson had an ihterview yes
terday with Secretary Sir George Grey.