The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-22 00:00:00

I

(THIS DAY.)

tea 127aition

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.
BEWDLEY ELECTION.

Mr. Chalmers, the clerk of the Bewdley Election
Committee, brought up the minutes of the evidence
given before the Bewdley Election Committee.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition, agreed
to at a public meeting in Brighton, in favour of the
People's Charter ; also a petition praying for the abo-
lition of the duty upon solicitors' annual certificates.
Mr. P. SCRUPE presented a petition from Bal-
lina, in the county of Mayo, praying the House to
adopt some measure for the reclamation of waste
lands.

Mr. COWAN presented a petition from Glasgow
against the Bill for establishing diplomatic relations
between this country and the Court of Rome.
Mr. K. SEYMER presented a petition from the
Governors of Christ Hospital, praying for the aboli-
tion of the duty on legacies left for charitable pur-
poses.
RIVER DUN NAVIGATION (EXTENSION

TO SHEFFIELD).
The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.

EJECTMENT S (IRELAND.)
Mr. POULETT SCROPE wished to ask the
Secretary of State for the Home Department whether
any steps are being taken or contemplated by the
Government for the prosecution of the parties con-
cerned in the illegal destruction of several houses,
and the forcible ejectment of their inmates, which'
took place in the Union of Galway on or about New
Year's Day last, and -which occasioned the deaths of
several of the unfortunate beings so ill treated ; as
appeared by the evidence taken on oath before-Major
Wile, Poor-law Inspector for that union, at the
request of the Commissioners, printed in page 467 of
the Fifth Series ,of relating to the Relief of
Distress and State- of the Unions in Ireland. The
Hon. Member pro-ceeded at some length to read
extracts from the Report of-the -Commissioners of
Poor-laws in Ireland, forming the ground of his
question, but was finally called to order by the"
Speaker.
Sir G. GREY said that it was impossible to read
without feelings of considerable pain of the destruc-
tion of a great number of houses in the county
of Galway. He was not aware, however, that the
parties so destroying the property had laid themselves
open to any criminal inforinatbn. It was his opinion,
that if a landlord .in the exercise of his discretion
acted in an unjust manner towards his tenant, the
latter would have a right of civil action, but he did
not think that they were- open to any criminal pro-
ceedings on the part of the Government._
On the motion that the order of the day be pro-
ceeded with,

Mr. P. SCROPE said that he begged to differ from
the opinion expressed by the. Right Hon. Baronet
the Secretary of State for the dome Department,
with respect to the persons who had forcibly ejected
their tenants and destroyed their houses not being
amenable to any criminal proceedings. It appeared
to him, from the statements in the reports, that such
conduct was punishable under the " White Boys'
Act," which prohibited the destruction or pulling
down of houses... In this case the unfortunate tenants
had been compelled to leave their houses in the middle
of a cold and inclement night, and their houses were im-
mediately destroyed. It was nothing more nor less,
in his opinion, than a system of agrarian outrage
carried on by the more powerful classes, for which
many of the poorer and weaker classes had been im-
prisoned or transported.
Sir G. GREY said that he;deprecated the facts of
the case as much as any Hon. 11! ember ; all that he
had stated was to the effect that he did not think that
the Government had the power to institute criminal
proceedings'against the landlords for the commission
of such acts.

Mr. B. ROCHE said that it appeared to him that
the whole of these evils were the result of the opera-
tion of the " quarter-acre" clause, which the Irish
Members had ♦ainly requested the House to repeal.
With respect. to the right of the ejected tenant to
bring a civil action against the landlord, it was a
perfect farce to talk of such things, or suppose that a
poor wretch stripped of everything, turned out of his
dwelling, and -compelled to seek refuge in the union
workhouse, could carry on an expensive suit against
the rich and powerful landlord. Was it to be sup-
posed that the poor people of Ireland could feel any-
thing like confidence in a Government which treated
them in this cruel and unfeeling manner ? The whole
object of the legislation of the House appeared to he
to protect and give impunity to the rich landlord in
his oppression of the poor.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE denied that these eject•
ments were the results of the " quarter-acre" clause ;
there was no proof whatever to show that those
so ejected were the holders of only quarters of acres ;
they might, for aught they knew, be the holders of
eight or ten acres. lie quite agreed in the opinion
of his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
the Home Department, that the Government had no
power whatever to institute criminal proceedings
against the landlords for these ejections and destruc-
tion of houses.
Sir A. BROOKE deprecated the wholesale charges
which were brought against the landlords of Ireland.
If cases of oppression and injustice occurred he was
perfectly willing that the names of such persons
should be made known and held up to public repro-
bation.— (Hear, hear.)
Mr. REYNOLDS proCeeded to read further ex-
tracts from the•" Blue Book," in confirmation of the
opinions expressed by thellon. Member for Stroud
(Mr. Scrope), of the atrocity of the acts complained
of, and expressed his thanks to the Hon. Member for
bringing the subject before the House, and his sur-
prise that he should have been induced to vote
against the motion recently brought forward for the
appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into
the operation of the poor-law, and
.the causes which
led to this disastrous state of things.
Mr. NAPIER wished to confirm the opinion ex•.
pressed by the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of
State for
,the 'Home Departme►tit, that the Govern-
ment had no power to institute criminal proceedings
against the landlords of Ireland.
Mr. H. M. FOX suggested that Mr. Blake, the
party who bad been guilty of these outrages, ought,
at least, .to be removed from the commission of the
peace.
AGRICULTURAL TENANT RIGHT BILL.
At the request of the Earl of M..RCH,
Mr. PUSEY consented to postpone main this day
three weeks the second reading of the Agricultural
Tenant Right Bill.
After a few words from Mr. Slaney, Sir G.
Strickland, and Mr. Henley, tae motion was agreed
to, and the Bill was ordered to be read a second time
this day three weeks.
OUTGOING TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD moved the second reading
of the Outgoing Tenants (Ireland) Bill. The tenant
right had been, from time immemorial, treated in
Ireland .as real property, and the object of
the present Bill was to place the rights
of outgoing tenants in Ireland upon the same footing
as they were at present in Ulster, and to assimilate
the common law of Ireland with that of the common
law of England, as it related to the relation of land-
lord and tenant. One great reason why he was
anxious that. the Bill should become law was, that
the tenants of Ulster were attempting to invade the
custom that prevailed there with respect to the rights
of tenants, and it therefore became necessary to
perpetuate the custom by making it law. Unless
this Bill became . the law every man -in Ireland
would feel that he had not a permanent title to his
land, and he therefore could not be supposed to have
any motive for attachment to the country. The tenant
right in Ulster had proved beneficial in various ways,
It bad been the means of establishing and extending
manufactures, and without it they would have
been in as miserable a condition as the other
parts of Ireland. Commissions after commis-
sions had reported upon the necessity of some
alteration in the law 4 landlord and tenant in Ire-
land ; the reports of those Commissions had been un-
heeded in that House, and one great object of this
Bill was to-relieve it from the obloquy under which
it laboured for this neglect. The ilon: Member
having at some length observed upon the provisions of
the different clauses of the Bill, concluded by mov-
ing that it be.read a second time.
Mr. TRELAWNY moved that the Bill be read
a second time this day six months. The Bill excited
hopes in the minds of the Irish tenantry that never
could be realised, and the bringing forward of such
measures therefore did more harm than good. In
fact, the Bill was founded upon a dangerous confis-
cating principle. He might, indeed, compare its prin-
ciple to that which would justify him in crossing the
floor of the House, seizing the watch of the Hon.
Member for Rochdale, and handing it over to the
next passer. by.—(Oh, oh.) At all events, if it were
not quite so bad as that, it partook very much of its
character, and he trusted the House would throw out
the Bill altogether. -
Dr. POWER gave it as his opinion that the time
had arrived when it was indispensably neces-
sary that Parliament should do something to
improve the tenantry of Ireland.—(Elear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman, Who had just sat down, com-
pared this Bill to the act of a pickpocket, but for the
life of him he could- not see what similarity there
was between the;yrinciple which actuated a thief and
the principle of justice and equity, Upon" which this
Bill was founded.—(Hear, hear.) The present state
of the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland in-

flicted misery and degradation upon the great :
mass of the people, and he hailed with de-
light any measure which was likely to have the
effect of improving such a state of things. In Ulster
tenant-right was admitted, and the consequence had
been that the people were happy and contented. In
every other part of Ireland, however, no such privi-
lege as tenant-right was known ; and hence the
origin of the cries of
_discontent which at pre-
sent might be heard extending from hill to
hill, and re-echoing in the willies throughout the
length and breadth of the sister land.—(Hear, hear.)
The Bill brought in upon this subject by the Right
Hon. the Secretary for Ireland was a delusion, a
mockery, and a snare, while that of the Hon. Member
for Rochdale contained a solid remedy for the prevail-
ing evils of Ireland, and he had, therefore, much
pleasure in supporting the motion for its second reading.
The moral which was to be drawn from all this was,
that if all the landlords of Ireland were like Lord
Headley, the positien of Ireland would be like Glen-
beg, but the fact was that the great majority of the
Irish landlords was not like that Noble Lord. The
people of Ireland had looked forward with the greatest
anxiety to the introduction of this measure, and he
had no doubt that it was the hope of this measure
which had supported them through the trying circum-
stances in which they had been placed during the
late famine. A measure of this sort had been alluded
to at the opening of the session in the Queen's Speech,
and foremost in the list of measures promised by the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government was one
for improving the relations of landlord and tenant.
He most earnestly trusted, therefore, that the House
would consent to pass this measure.
Mr. HUME said that the Hon. Member who had
last addressed the House stated very truly that in
Ireland the: Irish people conducted themselves
like no other nation upon earth, but when placed
in other situations and under different Govern-
ments, their conduct became assimilated to that
of both the: English and Scotch. What was the
reason of this ? They were badly governed, and
they were oppressed by their landlords to a most
grievous extent. He had for many years lifted up
his voice in favour of the fullest extension to them
of the same rights and privileges enjoyed by the
people of this country. If such rights were not granted
to that people, then, in his opinion, the union
was nothing more than a mere parchment union.
He did not think that it was any answer, in refusing
the extension of these rights, to say, that the people
were not prepared for those rights.—(Cries• of
" Hear, hear.") He was sorry that there
was no member of her Majesty's Go-
vernment present; no doubt they considered that
this was a measure which might safely be left to
the discussion of Irish Members, but he thought that
the time had now arrived when the subject ought to
be taken up by the Government. He thought that
the Government was much to blame for not having
brought foOrard their views upon the subject. They
had alreadY been assembled about five months, and
nothing whatever had been done upon this subject.
They had 4ot even the excuse of having had their
time occupied by important measures. Since their
last assembling, tbey had done nothing that he knew of,
beyond pasting a Bill of Indemnity to:her Majesty's
Government for interfering in the question of the
currency, and voting some of the supplies.—(Hear,
hear.) It was time for the House now to look around
them, when they saw the hurricane which was raging
everywhersi about them, .and endeavour to remove
all abuses and causes of grievance.—(Hear,
hear.) When the Honourable Baronet the Member
for Tam worth (Sir R. Peel) left office, he stated in
the paragraph of his address which closed his official
career, " that he would be ready to support any
measures Which her Majesty's Government might
bring forward for the extension to Ireland ef perfect
equality in all the rights and privileges en-
joyed by the people of this country." Why,
then, had not some measures been brought forward
:by the G-Overnment for this purpose ? Why was not
some measure introduced for improving the registra-
tion; for equalising the representation of the country;
for amendihg the jury-laws; for improving the muni-
cipal government of towns, and other purposes equally
needed for; the improvement of the country ?—(Hear,
hear.) He had been informed by a large auctioneer,
that if one million of lots of land were to he put
up for sale+ in the course of the ensuing year, they
would find purchasers at twenty-seven years' pur-
chase, prOvided a good and sure title could
be given to the purchasers. He had lately perused
a pamphlet written by a Mr. Tuite, and he rose from
that perusal fully convinced in his own mind that
what was wanted to improve the condition of
Ireland was a more equal distribution and
allocation of the land of that country.
It was because he had ever been of opinion that Ireland,
like Scotland, would profit by its union with Eng-
land, that he was anxious to avert the consequences
which might arise from a discontented popula-
tion, who joined in a cry for repeal or any
other thing. (Hear, hear.) Let the Govern-
ment remove the causes of those grievance.' and the
agitation would cease.—(Hear, hear.) Under all the
circumstances of the case he should advise his Hon.
Friend to postpone the further consideration of his
measure, in order to afford time for the Government
to consider the subject, and either bring in a measure
themselves, or_give their support to the present one.

Sir W. SOSIERVILLk said that the lion. Mem-
ber who had just addressed the Ilouse could not be
aware of the course which had been taken by the
Government with reference to this subject, or the
difficulties they, had met with in the course
they had pursued. The Hon. Member for Rochdale
(Mr. S. Crawford) had said that the people of Ire-
land would not accept of any measure which did not
go on the ground of the recognition of the tenant-right
of Ulster. The llon. Member bad made very extraor-
dinary and contradictory assertions upon this subject.
On the 9th of November last that lion. Member said
that mere occupation gave no tenant-right to the oc-
cupier. On the 11th of the same month he stated
that the tenant had a right, upon giving up posses-
sion of his land, to sell his interest in
it, but nothing whatever was said about money
expended by the tenants on improvements. If the
present Bill was to be allowed to pass, it would have
the effect of turning the whole of Ireland into one
vast field of litigation. With respect to the measure
introduced by the Government, he begged to
state that he had received from numerous persons
competent to pronounce an opinion upon the subject,
their entire concurrence in the principle of that
measure, and suggesting some slight modifications
in the machinery of the Bill, tending to reduce the
chances of litigation. If he thought that the Bill
of his Hon. Friend was likely to confer on the people
of Ireland those benefits which he appeared to anti-
cipate from it, he would give it his most cordial
support; but it • was because 'he thought no
such good would result from the measure, that he
felt bound to oppose the second reading of the mea-
sure. The effect of this Bill would, if introduced
into the county of Meath, for instance, be the means
of punishing all the kind and considerate landlords
of that county. Suppose, for instance, a person
wishing to dispose of a large quantity of land
and unwilling to sell it by public sale, being anxious
to keep his tenements as comfortable as possible,
should dispose of it privately for a sum of 20s. per
acre, it being worth 303. if sent into the
market.' Suppose, then, the person purchas-
ing the land should immediately go_ into the
market and dispose of the land, receiving for the same
in immense sum as tenant-right, whiohhe would put
into hii own pocket, leaving the„ original owner a
number of rack-rented tenants, while. he himself
pocketed the amount of the tenant-right.—(Hear.)
Mr. S. CRAWFORD—There is a clause in the
Bill preventing that.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE--Then the Hon. Member
did not intend to base his measure on the Ulster
tenant-right; he had some other plan to propose.
He felt it, therefore, to he his duty to op-
pose the second reading of the present Bill ;
and he trusted that the House would not consent to
allow the Bill to be further proceded with, satisfied as
he was that if passed into law it would only be pro-
ductive'of the most serious evils to the country.

Mr. B. ROCHE felt much pleasure in support-
ing the second reading of the Bill.: He contended
that there was no means of enabling the tenants of
Ireland: to gain a livelihood on the land, unless they
granted the tenant-right. The Right Hon. Baronet,
the Secretary • for Ireland, had stated that if this
Bill was passed there would be one mass of
litigation from one end. of Ireland to the other ; he
deniedassed itwould 'thatstiad tend t
tement,grbeealtieit dgtehearet
aisfe
litigationthisßill
was
pin
Ireland and neentunitnycormeasnewint.thiMngThsywewre.asgniintgthat in
Ulster and the on well
while in other parts of Ireland there was the
confusion ? The answer was plain—the
t
was established there. The question they had to
decide was, whether they would encourage the
people of Ireland to ensure themselves comforts by their
industry, or would allow their energies to be cramped
and shackled as they were at the present time by the
law as it at present stood. He most cordially sup-
ported the second reading of the Bill.
Sir B, HALL did not object to the enfoccemei3
of tenant-right, but he did object strongly
to the manner in which it was proposed
to be enforced by the present Bill. He agreed with
the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for Ireland,
that if the Bill became law, it would lead to the
extension of litigation in Ireland. He did not think
that the tenant-right was absolutely necessary for
the well-being of Ireland ; nor did he imagine that
its existence had produced such good effects as many
persons imagined. The present discussion proved
that there was something wrong. in the re-
lation of landlord and tenant in Ireland.
In this country there was a sympathy be-
tween the landlord and tenant,:, but such was not
the case in Ireland. In that country tile tenants were
continually complaining of the absence of the landlords,

and the moment they came among them they shot them,
and then illuminated the neghbourhood, and rejoiced
that they had got rid of them. He thought that the
course that had been adopted by the Lord-Lieutenant
for putting a stop to these outrages in Ireland had
laid that country under a far greater debt of grati-
tude to him than was due to many Hon. Member
for speeches they had made in that House.
He believed that the provisions of the Bill would not
meet with the approbation of the great mass of the
people of Ireland. He believed that the question
of tenant-right was brought forward for no other
purpose than that of keeping up agitation in Ireland.
The Hon. Gentleman then referred to two speeches
of Mr. John O'Connell, stating what he considered
tenant-right to be, and also to the statement of Mr.
Foster, 7'he Time? Commissioner, whose statements
with respect to Darrynane and other property in Ire-
land he believed to be most correct. The Hon. Baronet
then proceeded to refer to the case of several parts of
Ireland, for the purpose of showing that the greatest
wretchedness had existed where tenant-right
existed to the fullest extent, and that that
wretchedness was removed when the ciptorn of tenant-
right was done away with. The lion. Baronet re-
ferred particularly to the case of the property of
Lord George Hill, who on succeeding to
his property in Ireland found it in a
most wetched condition, and had now suc-
ceeded in making it fruitful, and his tenantry
happy and contented, and this, too, without the
exercise of any foree. Such being the case, he asked
those who had property in Ireland to follow
the example of Lord George Hill. As to
the repeal of the Union, he believed that
question would soon die a natural death if the
landlords of , Ireland, like Lord G. Hill, did their
duty. Hon. Gentlemen had been in the habit of re-
ferring to Ireland in the language of the poet, and
calling her—

" First flower of the earth.
And first gem of the sea."
He thought that the time had long since gone by
when she deserved such appellations.—(Hear, hear.)
Her flower had faded, and her gem had lost its lustre.;
they might revive the one, and restore the splendour
of the other, but not by the means that her sons
were now pursuing—they must help themselves, and
God would help you.—(Hear, hear.) Parliament
could never do that good for Ireland which it might
do for itself if its countrymen would only pursue the
right course. He felt bound, therefore, to oppose the
second reading of the Bill.
Mr. SADLEIR deprecated the introduction of
irritating topics into the question. No one could
more appreciate the efforts of Government to alleviate
the distress and sufferings of the Irish people than he
did, and he felt that, when the proper time arrived,
they would be prepared with other measures to per-
manently improve the condition of Ireland. It
was, in the mean time, easy for Hon. Gentlemen
to get up in that House and talk largely
about tenant-right, without condescending to explain
what they meant by that plan. No man was more
disposed to 'concede all that the tenant had a right to
demand of his landlord than himself; but let them
look at the question with unprejudiced eyes,
and not take steps in a time of excite-
ment to unduly relieve the tenant at the
expense of the landlord. The system of tenant-right
which he wished to see legalized by an Act of the
Legislature was that which was already in operation
in the province of Ulster, and he hoped the House,
instead of agreeing to the Bill now under dis-
cussion, or the Bill introduced by the Right
Hon. the Secretary for Ireland, would direct
them to be referred to the consideration
of a Select Committee up stairs. He certainly was
opposed to the amendment of the Hon. Member for
Tavistock, because there could be no doubt that the
tenants of Ireland had a right to ask for relief at the
hands of that House ; and although he saw the seeds
of future litigation in the Bill of the Honourable
Member for Rochdale, he would rather vote for its
second reading than consent to a proposition to post-
pone till a future day an abuse which certainly did
exist in Ireland, and which ought to be got rid of
without a moment's delay.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon:
Member then proceeded to inveigh against the exist-
ing Irish poor-law, but he was interrupted by
Lord CASTLEREAGH, who rose to order, on
the ground that the poor-law of Ireland had nothing
to do with, the Bill before the House.

Mr. SADLEIR would readily bow to the decision
of the House, and would sit down protesting that it
was 'the duty of Parliament to adopt some measure
to put at rest the Irish landlord and tenant question.
Mr. D. O'CALLAGHAN sympathised with the
motives which had induced the Hon. Member for
Rochdale to bring forward this Bill, and he very much
feared that its provisions did not fully meet
the difficulties of the question. He had had many
private conversations with the Hon. Member upon
this subject, and it by no means appeared to him that
the Hon. Member himself was quite satisfied that his
measure was an efficient remedy for the prevailing
evils. lie thought, therefore, it would be much better
to leave the matter in the hands of the Government,
and let them try if they could not devise some mea-
sure which should have the effect of settling the
question to the satisfaction of all parties.—(Hear.)
On the motion of Mr. Napier the debate was then
adjourned till the sth of April.
DERBY ELECTION.

Mr. CHILDERS brought up the report of the
Derby Election Committee, declaring Mr. Strutt and
Mr. Gower to have been unduly elected for that
borough.