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

kers° they intended to take with respect to the sche-
dules?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND made
scale reply, weice was inaudible.
kr• S. CRAWFORD protested against a portion cf
5e Pleasure (the 71st clause), but would not oe the roe
`oht oceabion r ffer a ly opposition.
obl4e. NAPIER said sue of the clauses which had been
Jected to was only to clear up a doubtful point. The
zinnia which a:l tee existing laws.
r. pre et
said the 73d clause gave a wiler power
nch at present exieted. This constituted a new law
.with regard to the tenure of land in Ireland. He ob-
toted to the principle of passing laws hit by bit, while
neat eatquestion of landlord and tenant was left un-
tcettled. If the law of dietraining for rent were done
to the
Wirh, he believed nothing would tend so effsctually
Tea
settlement of the landlord and tenant question.
*ea bit by bit legislation vs as vicious, imprudent, and
injurious to the best interests of Ireland. They write
to new powers to landlords, but they were denying
1...1° the tenant the
means of obettniug compensation fur
eeprovements.
The Bill was then read a first time.
11.Ialr. REYNOLDS intimated his determination to offer
tePposition te the 82d section of the Bill.
be postponed
W. SOMERVILLE said all the schedules would
eoatponed for 'he present.
Mr. REYNOLDS wished a day to be fixed for going
vri with the sch. dules.
Mr. FRENCH said all the objections that could be
urged to the schedules had already been urged by the
°H. Member himself in Committee.
Mr. REYNOLDS observed the schedules were in such
44 imperfect state that the authors would be obliged to
correct them.
Mr. WAWN said the Hon. Member for Dublin was
enough to tire out the patience of the House and the
I leuntry—and of Job himself. The Hon. Member came
forward to ask for the delay of a measure which he did
not understand.
business
S. CRAWFORD said it would not expedite Irish
I_,Biness for an English Member to rise and make such
Marks as those which had Julien from the Hon. Mem-
ber (Me. Wawn).
Mr. REYNOLDS would receive with perfect good
humour the lecture of the intelligent Member for West
''hields; but he must again say he hoped the schedules
rrould be postponed for a loreeer date then Thursday.
.1 Sir W. SOMERVILLE could not postpone the eche-
mules beyond Thursday.
f Mr. WAWN said the Hon. Member for Dublin, he-
irs he attempted to remark upon the intelligence of any
4•04. Member, ought first to set himself right in his
geography. Shiel is was north, not west.
Mr. TAYLOR moved "That the present chairman of
11M county of Dublin, so long as be sr all remain in office,
ee not ineligible to sit in Parliament."
The AT FORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND would
not oppwe 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
"'Mended) agreed to.
Clauses to 24 were agreed to.
On the clause relating to the courts of assistant bar-
. liners,
Colonel DUNNE moved that the jurisdiction of the
retina 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. NORR.sYS saw no use in referring Bills to
Select Committees if the Howe were not to abide by the
decitions of such Committees.
Mr. HERBERT said there was no undeistanding 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 40L, as
agreed to by the Select Committee.
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 theu 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 raid he wished to introduce a
Clause which had been in the original Bill of the Go-
/eminent, to the following eff-ct:—" That if an action
Was brought in any of the superior courts the person
bringing it should not he entitli d to larger costs than he
Would in an inferior court, unless the judge who tried
it would give a certificate that it was a cause fit to be
tried in the superior courts." The Hon. Member having
teed 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 after ma-
ttlre consideration.
Mr. French, Mr. Monsell, and Mr. Keogh supported
the clause.
Mr. NAPIER opposed it.
The CeiAIRMAN 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
Majority ... —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 come
Suits ed pro forma, and ordered to be re-committed on
Mon day next.
LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION (IRELAND)
BILL.
LABOUCHERE moved the second reading of
this fill. The object of it was to substitute for the sys-
tem of trial by jury in cases of compensation for the ()c-
-oupe don 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,
there fore, prepared the present Bill, in which he pro-
posed to follow the course that had been
adopt ed in the Shannon Navigation Bill—namely,
to comaitute a court of arbitration, which should
be an open court of inquiry, and which should make a
draft ;award, and a see ,nd court should give the final
award. Another system which had been suggested was
that the final decision show dbe referred to a jury at
quarter sessions. He did not say which was the pre-
ferable system; but he meant to consult the Irish Mem-
bers of all parties without distinction, and whichever
system was thought the most 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 ins
troduce their measures on their own responsibility, and
induce the House of Commons 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 leeitimate
' way, with the view of influencing the decision in some
degree by the report of that Committee. It be did so in
the usual constitutional manner he had no doubt the
House would pay proper attention to the decision of the
4 30Malittee; but he (Mr. Disraeli) protested against the
c ourse he proposed to take in the matter.
After a few words from Colonel DUNNE,
Mr. S. CRAWFORD opposed the Bill as an invasion
of ' the rights of property which the House ought not
U . sanction.
Mr. MONSELL said the Bill at present only affirmed
t;,l se principle of arbitration; the details were fur their
.iture consideration.
Mr. O'FLAIIERTY thought that there ought to be
tin appeal given for the decision of the arbitrator. In
opposition to the doctrine laid down by the Hon. Mem-
ber 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 English Members ought to be consulted upon
questions bearing exclusively upon the interests of 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 affecting
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 siid he did not mean to oppose the
second reading of the Bill. But he should 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 he would take upon that subject was neither very
regular nor very constitutional. It certainly appeared
-to him that the Right Hon. Gentleman bad announced
in too decided and general a manner that be would allow
'the Irish Members—whurn he would consult out of that
.House—to decide the mode in which he would carry out
-.that measure,
Mr. VESEY expressed his belief that the course taken
ihy the Right Hou. Gentleman the President of the
Board of Trade was perfectly just and reasonable.
Mr. AGLIONBY said he very much questioned the
propriety of the mode in which the Right Hou. Gentle-
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
be would leave to the decision 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 consult:46ot, with
the Irish Members which i; Was proptreed that the Right
lion. Gentlemen the President of the Beard of Trade
should hold with them after en advanced stage cf the
measura. In his opinion the proper course for the Right
Hon Gentlemen to pursue would be to withdrew that
measure, and to introduce another in its place, after he
had consulted the Irish Members.
Mr. CONOLLY said that he viewed with distrust
any departure from English law with respect to property
in Ireland. They had had a vast sacrifice of property

39
82
-43