The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-24 00:00:00

Course they intended to take with re-pect to the ache-
du ?
Thi, SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND male
some reply, white, w 1,4 trolu• inte.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD pretested aettittst a portion of
the pleasure (the 7 lst clause). but would not uu the pre-
sent (,c,:thillTletfer any opposition.
Mr. N A PIER Naiil one of the, elati;es which had ben
ohj etA to was my to clear up a d etbtful peint. The
clause which ref, ried to ijce,meets did nut go beyond
the existing lows.
Mr. ROCHE said the 73i clause gave a wider power
than at present existed. This constituted a new law
with regard to the tenure of land in Ireland. He ob-
jected to the principle of passing laws bit by bit, while
the great question of landlord and tenant was left un-
settled. It the law of dtstraining for rest were done
away with, he behoved nothing would tend so a ff cTu Ily
to the settlement of the landlord and tenant question.
The bit by bit legislation was vicious, imprudent, and
injurious to the best interests of Ireland. They were
giving new powers to landlotds, but they were denying
to the tenant the means of obtaining compensation fur
improvements.
The Bill was then read a first time. *
Mr. REYNOLDS intimate d his determination to offer
his opposition to the 82d section of the Bill.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said all the schedules would
be postponed for the present.
Mr. REYNOLDS wished a day to be fixed for going
on with the sell. dules.
Mr. FRENCH said all the objections that could be
urged to the schedules had already been urged by the
Hon. Mrtnher himself in Committee.
Mr. REYNOLDS observed the schedules were in such
an imperfect state that the authors would be übliged to
correct them.
Mr. WAWN said the Hon. Member for Dublin was
enough to tire out the patience of the House and the
country—and of Job himself. The Hon. Member came
forward to ask for the delay of a measure which be did
not understand.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said it would not expedite Irish
business for an English Member to rise and make such
remarks as those which had 'alien from the Hon. Mem-
ber (Mr. Wawn).
Mr. REYNOLDS would receive with perfect good
humour the lecture of the intelligent Member for West
Shields; but he must again say he hoped the schedules
Would be postponed for a longer date thin Thursday.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE could not postpone the sche-
dules beyond Thu-shay.
Mr. WAWN said the Hon. Member for Dublin, be-
fore he attempted to remark upon the intelligence of any
Hon. Member, ought first to set himself right iu his
geography. Shiel is was north, not west.
Mr. TAYLOR moved "That the present chairman of
the county of Dublin, so long as he a all remain in uffice,
be not ineligible to sit in Parliament."
• The AT FORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND would
not oppose the proviso.
Mr. REYNOLDS thought the proviso a harmless one,
but would wish to see it extended to the successors of the
present chairman.
The proviso was then inserted, and the clause (as so
amended) agreed to.
Clauses to 24 were agreed to.
On the clause relating to the courts of assistant bar-
ristp re,
Colonel DUNNE moved that the jurisdiction of the
courts be extended to 501., instead of 401, as in the
clause.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE was in favour of 501., but as
the Select Committee had decided in favour of 401., he
Would vote for adhering to their decision.
Sir D. NORRtYS saw no use in referring Bills to
Select Committees if the Howe were not to abide by the
decisions of such Committees. .

Mr. HERBERT said there was no understanding that
the House should not consider this point.
Mr. HUME was in favour of inserting 50/., as it would
assimilate the courts in Ireland to the county courts in
England.
Mr. GROGAN would adhere to the sum of 401,, as
agreed to by the Select C .mtnittee.
The Committee then divided—
For the motion ••• • •
Against it
Majority
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses to 40 inclusive were agreed to.
Colonel DUNNE gave notice that he would move the
insertion of clause 41 of the original Bill on bringing up
the report.
Clauses to 72 inclusive were then ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
Clause 73 was postponed.
Clauses to 81 were agreed to.
Clause 82 was postponed.
The remaining clauses were ordered to stand part of
the Bill.
Colonel DUNNE then said he wished to introduce a
clause which had been in the original Bill of the Go-
vernment, to the following eff.ct:—" That if an action
was brought in any of the superior courts the person
bringing it should not be entiti. d to larger costs than he
would in an ieferiJr court, unless the judge who tried
it would give a certificate that it was a eNuse fit to be
tried in the superior courts." The Hon. Member having
read the clause brought it up, and it was moved to be
read a first time.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND op-
posed the clause, to which he said great objection had
been expressed in Ireland. The clause had been fully
discussed in Committee, and had been rejected alter ma-
ture consideration.
Mr. French, Mr. Monsell, and Mr. Keogh supported
the clause.
Mr. NAPIER opposed it.
The Cif AIRMAN asked whether the Hon. and Gal-
lant Member meant to press it?
Colonel DUNNE intimated his intention to do so.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it 92
M4j )rity ..• •.. ... —29
The clause was accordingly lost.
The House then resumed, the Chairman reported pro-
gress, and obtained leave to sit again.
The Collection of Fines, &c. (Ireland) Bill was com-
mitted pro forma, and ordered to be re-committed on
Monday next.
LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION (IRELAND)

39
82
-43

BILL.
Mr. LABOUCHERE moved the second reading of
this Bill. The object ot it was to substitute for the sy s-
tern of trial by jury in cases of cemeensation for the oc-
cupation of land by railways a more summary and cheap
system. 'A general feeling prevailed in Ireland in
favour of a change of the present system, and he had,
therefore, prepared the present Bill, in which he pro-
posed to follow the course that had been
adopted in the Shannon Navigation Bill—namely,
to constitute a court of arbitration, which should
be an open court of inquiry, and which should make a
draft award, and a sec .nd court should give the final
award. Another system which had been suggested was
that the final decisiou shoed be referred to a jury at
quarter sessions. He did not say which was the pre-
feruble system; but he meant to consult the Irish Mem-
bers of all parties without distinction, and whichever
system was thought the moat desirable upon the whole,
that he should adopt.
Mr. DISRAELI thought the speech of the Right
Hon. Gentleman a most remarkable and dangerous one.
It appeared that the Government were no longer to in.
troduce their measures on their own responsibility, and
induce the House of C 00203003 to adopt them by open
discussion; but the Right Hon. Gentleman told them
that he asked them to agree to the principle of a mea-
sure, and that with regard to all its details he was to
settle them with the Irish Members, wherever he should
meet them. The Right Hon. Gentleman did not propose
to refer it to a Select Committee in the usual and legitimate
way, with the view of iiifluencing the decision in some
degree by the report of that Committee. It he did so in
the usual constitutional manner he had no donk the
House would pay proper attention to the decision of the
Committee; bat he ( gr. Disraeli) protested against the
course he proposed to take in the matter.
After a tew words from Colonel DUNNE,
Mr. S. CRAWFORD opposed the Bill as an invasion
of the rights of property which the House ought not
to sanction.
Mr. MONSELL said the Bill at present only affirmed
the principle ot arbitration; the details were for their
future consideration.
Mr. O'FLAHERTY thought that there ought to be
an appeal given for the decision of the atbitrator. In
opposition to the doctrine laid down by the Hon. Mem•
bee for Buckinghamshire, he contended that it was only
fair and reasonable that the feelings and opinions of the
Irish Members should be consulted upon Irish questions,
just as D.glish Members ought to be consulted upon
questions bearing exclusively upon the interests ot this
country.
Mr. BERNAL said it was highly necessary that some
Bill should be introduced and passed upon that subject,
and that some final rule should be laid down for the
guidance of Committees. He approved of the main
principle of the Bill, but he did not pledge himself to
support its details. He would remind the Hon. Member
for Buckinghamshire that that was a question aff,cting
exclusively Irish interests, and that it was only reason-
able that an appeal should be made to the experience of
Irish Members upon the subject.
Mr. HERRIES s id e did not mean to oppose the
second reading of the Bhill. But he [mould observed that
be agreed with his Hon. Friend the Member for Buck-
inghamshire that the course which the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the President of the Board of Trade had stated
that be would take upon that subject was neither very
regular nor very constitutional. It certainly announced
to him that the Right Hon. Gentleman had announced
in too decided and general a manner that he would allow
the Irish Members—whom he would consult out of that
House—to decide the mode in which he would carry out
that Inert4arp.
Mr. VESEY expressed his belief that the course taken
by the }Net Hon. Gentleman the President of the
Board of Trails was perfectly just and reasonable.
Mr. AGLIONBY said he very much questioned the
propriety of the mode in which the Right Hon. Gentl -
man the President of the Board of Trade proposed to
deal with the subject. He could not help thinking that
the point which the Right Hon. Gentleman stated that
he would leave to the decisioo of the Irish Members
was of too important a character to be settled out of the

House.
Mr. J. STUART said he thought that that Bill should
not have been introduced without that consultation with
the Irish Members which it was proposed that the Right
Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade
should hold with them after an advanced stage of the
measure. In his opinion the proper course for the Right
Hon. Gentleman to pursue would be to withdraw that
measure, and to iotroduoe another in its place, after he
had consulted he Irish Members.
Mr. CONOLLY said that he viewed with distrust
any departure from English law with respect to property
is Ireland. They had had a vast sacrifice of property