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

tially and at leisure, and that it would not go hack to
Ireland that their Lordships had passed a Bill for the
confiscation of Irish estates.

The Marquis of LANSJ)OWNE felt called upon to
offer a few observations, in reply to the Noble Earl who
had just sat down, because that Noble Lord had argued
as if the Government which introduced this Bill, and the
Parliament which had passed it, had been actuated by
a desire to confiscate the property of the landlords of
Ireland. He said, on the contrary, that they were most
anxious to promote the prosperity of the landed pro-
prietors, and that the Bill had been introduced with
that object as one mode by which they could be relieved
from their difficulties. But when they talked of the
landlords of Ireland as being affected by this Bill. Who
were they? and in what capacity would they be affected
by it? It was admitted, when he brought forward this
, subject two years ago, not in that, but in the other
House of Lords, that there was a great proportion of the
landed property of Ireland in which all the duties of
property were neglected, and all the evils of poverty
endured; their Lordships said at that time that
such a state of things should be altered.—
(Hear.) They said that estates instead of remaining
in the hands of those who had not the means of employ-
ing labour and improving cultivation, but on the con-
trary. who, by the difficulties in which they were in-
volved, retarded both these desirable objects, should be
dealt with in some way for the public benefit.—(Hear.)
Hence the Bill. The Noble Earl (Ellenborough) in the
course of his speech, had attacked the Bill severely, and
had thrown out two amendments, which so far from im-
proving the condition of the proprietors, would in his
opinion injure them. Ono of these amendments was,
that the proprietor should not be allowed to sell, in order
to pay off a part of his debts, unless he sold off enough
to pay for the whole of his incumbrances. Why, did not
that impose a limit which would be extremely injurious
to the proprietors ?—(llear, hear.) The plan of the
Government would enable him to bring a part of the es-
tate to sale, to give more labour, and to improve in many
ways the remainder, thus increasing its productiveness
and its value. Then again, the Noble Earl suggested
that no sale should be allowed which did not
realise twenty years' purchase. What would be
the effect of that suggestion if it was adopted ? Why,
that if a proprietor was compelled by any circumstances
to make a sale, he would be compelled to sell at twenty
years' purchase the best parts of his estate for that
price instead of the worst. There could not be a more
injurious restriction than that. He might, therefore, dis-
miss these two suggestions at once from consideration.
He was not able any more than other Noble Lords to
pass an opinion as to what would be the technical bear-
ing of certain clauses, but at all events he was entitled
to say that there never was a Bill which came into their
Lordships' House with a greater weight and authority.
It had been carefully considered, not by Noble and
Learned Lords who held office with different Govern-
ments, but also by Noble and Learned Lords whose
impartiality was vouched for by their judicial habits,
and he might, therefore, say that this part of the
subject had been duly considered by parties much
more competent to decide upon it than the Noble
Earl.. As to the statement that the Bill had been too
short a time before their Lordships in its present shape,
he would remind them that it had been sent up last
Tuesday, and had thus been six days in their Lordships'
House. But even before the Bill came up, their Lord-
ships were not to be supposed to be so completely bound
by forms as to be ignorant of what was passing in the
other House, more especially when they had the votes of
that House sent up to them daily.--(Hear, hear.) The
Bill had been under discussion in the other House since
the 11th of June, and it could not be supposed that
their Lordships had shut their eyes and. ears, and
were quite ignorant of what had been doing in this
matter. On these grounds he contended that Noble
Lords were not entitled to ask for more time or to cause
greater delay in passing a measure of such importance
as this,—(Hear.) Again, with regaid to the stress that
had been laid on the necessity for obtaining the opinions
of Noble and Learned Lords. All the Noble and Learned
Lords in that House were in favour of the Bill, and
those who were absent must be supposed either to be
in favour of it, or to consider that any defects in the
measure were of so trifling a character as not to be
worth their attendance.—(Hear, hear.) He would not
object to any amendments which were proposed by
parties friendly to the Bill, but he must object to delay
for the mere purpose of retarding the passing of' the
measure. As the Noble Earl (Earl Devon) had shown,
the amendments were not new additions to the Bill ; on
the contrary, they were intended and calculated to carry
out its objects more effectually, and to remove all un-
necessary obstructions to its beneficial operation. One
of the objections urged to this Bill was, that a person
holding a mortgage of 2001. might compel a sale ; but a
person with only that amount must give at least six
months' notice of foreclosure ; and surely in that time,
if any general attempt like that supposed was made, the
landlords would have time to prepare for it. It was said
that these estates should not be brought to sale under
the present circumstances of the country ; but he
asked their Lordships to recollect, en the other hand,
that the state of the country was in a great measure
caused by the bad management of such property.—
(Hear, hear.) He hoped that their Lordships would,
seeing:the, importance of the measure itself, the ample
consideration it had received, and the authority by which
it was supported, with as little delay as possible, adopt
the amendments and pass it into a law.
Lord STANLEY briefly replied. He denied that he
opposed the Bill for the mere purposes of delay. As to
the high authority of the Noble and Learned Lord on
the Woolsaclo,no one had a higher respect for that Noble
and Learned Lord than ho had ; but he must remind
their Lordships that the Noble and Learned Lord had
not always entertained the same opinions on this Bill.
He would at once abandon his opposition to this Bill
if either of the Noble and Learned Lords in the House
would rise in his place, and say that it was
either safe or expedient to apply the provisions
of this Blil to England and Scotland. With re-
spect to the shortness of time, he protested against the
doctrine, that their Lordships should be held to know
anything of measures until they came formally before
them, or that their Lordships were bound, day after
day, to read all the amendments that might be proposed
on Bills either by the Government or by other persons.
He claimed for their Lordships the right of fully delibe-
rating on every question after it came constitutionally
before them.—(Hear, hear.) He now asked for time, in
order to get the necessary explanations from Noble and
Learned Lords as to the real operation of the new
clauses. He knew the fate of his motion; but he should
not be discharging his duty if he did not take the sense
of their Lordships on the question.
The LORD CHANCELLOR explained. He had
formerly objected to the creation of a new jurisdiction
in Ireland, on the ground that the Court of' Chancery in
that country was already supported at the expense of
the country, and ought to be sufficient. The amend-
ments did not create a new jurisdiction, but gave facili-
ties for sales, without the intervention of the Court in
certain cases, and under certain restrictions. There was
noinconsistencyin supporting that alteration.
Lord LANGDALE said the principle of the Bill was
not to facilitate the sale of incumberedi estates under
contract for that purpose, but to facilitate sales notwith-
stanotwith-
standing there were no contracts of that kind. The
principle was to facilitate the sale of estates, the pro-
prietors of which were unable to discharge the ditties
pertaining to them. The principle of the Bill had been
already agreed to, and this, therefore, could not be called
a new Bill. The Noble Lord (Stanley) asked whether
such a Bill would have been proposed for England ?
If the condition of England was the same as that of
Ireland, he might not perhaps propose precisely this Bill,
because he feared those clauses might render it inopera-
tive ; but he should certainly support a Bill with even
more stringent provisions.
The House then divided when there appeared
For the motion—Contents
Non-Contents
Majority against Lord Stanley's amendment —l7
The Commons' amendments were then agreed to, and
the House adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 31.
SUGAR DUTIES.
The House then resolved itself into Committee on the
Sugar Duties; Mr. BERNAL in the chair.
The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER then
proceeded to state the alterations which the Government
intended to make in the sugar duties. The altera-
tion which the Government intended to make with
respect to double and refined sugar were fully set
forth :in the paper. The Government had hoped
to have made some arrangement by which the
poorer classes at home might obtain sugar at a
reduced rate, but the result of interviews which he
and his Honourable Friend the Member for Westbury
had had with sugar refiners had led them to the opinion
that they could not at present clearly see their
way to the introduction of such a provision.
The House would believe him when he said that no
time nor pains were spared to come to a satisfactory
conclusion. The main difficulty with which they had to
contend was the necessity that the whole of the sugars
which came from the refiners must be subject to some
duty. If Government complied with the wishes of lion.
Gentlemen opposite, and imposed restrictions upon the re-
fining of sugars for the protection of the honest manu-
facturer, it would only serve to revive the evils of excise
interference, and he must therefore decline to comply
with the demand of the Noble Lord and his followers.
Mr. CARDWELL protested on behalf of the Liver-
pool sugar refinerss against the vacillation which cha-
racterised the proceedings of the Government with re-
gard to the sugar duties generally, and particularly with
respect to their withdrawal of the measure at the eleventh
hour, which had been promised to his constituents at an
early period.

Mr. LABOUCHERE denied that any such expecta-
tion had been held out, though he admitted that such
an arrangement would be highly desirable; but so great
were the difficulties in the way of carrying it into effect,
that the Government were obliged to abandon the at•
tempt for the present.
Sir W. CLAY said that the sugar-refiners of London
were not disappointed, inasmuch as they did not think
that this measure, ir carried, would remedy their griev-
ances.

Mr. BARCLAY proposed an amendment with regard
to including cane, uice for consumption, but withdrew it
after some discussion.

Lord G. BENTINCK said he would now come to the
first part of his amendment, which was the exclusion of
the words, " end on all sugar and molasses not otherwise
charged with duty," in the heading of schedule 3, re-
garding the duties on foreign sugar. Whilst he could
not approve of the proceedings of her Majesty's Govern-
ment on this matter, he could not help admiring the
' deLonnaire with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
came down to the House and announced that he was
going to disappoint the planters of the West Indies and
the Mauritius by withholding the great boon which be
had promised. In fact, the whole course of the Hon.
Gentleman was a plea of guilty to the three-and-twenty
counts which he (Lord George Bentincli) preferred