The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-07 00:00:00

CLA.MATION.

Mr. BRIGHT--I wish to call the attention of the
Vice. President of the Beard of Control to a proclama-
tion of the Governor-General of India, a purported copy
of which appears in the pspers of to-day. [A. copy wi I
be found in another column of this journal ] Toe
proclamation in question authorises the Governor
General of India to reserve the lan.s of certain
ryots or zemindara in consideration of their general sta-
bility to the English rule, but that be proposed in the
proclamation to confiscate generally all the soil of the
kingdom of Oude, to be disposed of hereafter as the
Governor-General and the Government of India shall
think fit. What I want to know is, if that particular
part of the proclamation was issued in accorJance with
any direction from the Government in India, or if not,
whether the Home Government has sent any directions
with regard to it generally, and also for the right hon.
gentleman to state to the house the steps ho intends to
take with regard to it. The question is of so much im-
portance that I thiok the right hon. gentleman will
agree with me it should be fully and distinctly
answered. (Ilear, hear.)
Mr.-BAILLIE Three weeks since her Maj'.isty's
Government received a dispatch contaning a proclama-
tion from the Governor-General of India, which it
it w
was stated his intention
aFi her Majesty's troopse were in possestsoionisosfuetuacskusooown.
That I believe is the proclamation referred to, a copy of 1
which I have seen
h t
agree with those in the-d3V papers.*l Its provisions
, with
the exception
received by her
Majestys Gov-rnment
of one para-
graph, which I believe has since been cdedtoit. As soon
ss the proclamation was received:,
Go-
vernment it was taken into consideration,herl Majesty's
adispatch
_
wai written and forwarded to 'the Governor-Generala n
ex-
pressing the views and the opinions of her Ma-
jesty's Government in reference to it. There
would be no objection to lay a copy of the proclamation
on the table of the house, and also a copy of the
despatch written in reference to it. The confiscation
was not inserted in the proclamation of the Governor-
General of India in consequence of any instructions sent
cut by her M jesty's Government, but it was issued en-
tirely on the authority of the Government of India.
Mr. BRIGHT—Perhaps the light hon. gentleman

I will tell the house the tenor of the answer of her Ma-
jesty's Government to the proclamation, that it may go
forth to the country with the question and answer al-
ready given.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—A
copy of the despatch shall be laid on the table of the
house, as stated by the right hon. gentleman the Vice-
' President of the Board of Control, but I think it right
to state that when we received information of this in-
tended proclamation, her Majesty's Government took it
into their consideration, and the despatch we have sent
to the Governor. General of India disapproves of his
policy in thi I respect in every sense. (Loud cheers.)
TENANT RIGHT (IRELAND).
Mr. GREER moved for a select committee to inquire
into the nature, origin, and extent of the tenant right
custom in Ireland, the recent violations of it in Donegal
and other northern counties, and to consider and report
how far it may be practicable to protect, for the benefit
of the occupying tenants, the property which had been
created sender that custom. The hon. gentleman entered
at great length into the history of holdings in Ireland
generally.
Lord NAAS could not follow the hon. gentleman
over the wide field which he had travelled with reference
to the tenure of land in Ireland. The hon. gentleman
asked for a committee to inquire into the system of te-
nant right as it existed in the north of Ireland. No
doubt that was a question of importance ; but there
existed in the library of the house ample information on
the subject. In the reports of the Devon Commission
every particular of the question was stated at full length.
That commission had examined landlords, tenant, la-
lecturers, and every class, and had obtained the fullest
information from the evidence. The tenant right in the
north of Ireland differed from any such that existed in
England ; for where it existed in England it only went
to compensation for unexhausted improvements ; but in
the north of Ireland it went much further, for large
sums were given for the goodwill of the occupancy of
farms. Much might be said for and against the custom.
It often secured the landlord against arrears of rent, and
it also secured the tenant compensation for improve-
ments : but it also often acted prejudicially, when tenant
right expended all their capital in buying up the tenant
right before they entered on the occupancy, and then
they were crippled in their future operations. But the
custom did exist in the north of Ireland, and there was
a. disposition on the part of either landlord or tenant to
get rid of it, and it was likely to remain in its present
form, for he had heard of no attempts on the part of land-
lords and tenants in the north of Ireland to shake the
custom. The hon. gentleman had mentioned one or two
instances, but be admitted that there was no inclination
to depart from what. What he (Lord Naas) wished to
show was, that as the custom existed, it was beyond the
power of Parliament to deal with it in any respect. Te-
nant right varied in different localities—its value differed
from 51. to 201. an acre. It differed according to the
price of agricultural produce, the demand fit land, the
amount of population, and so on. Therefore it was im-
possible to legislate satisfactorily on a matter so various,
and of such a different character in different localities.
Much information could be obtained from the results

of the labours of the committee of inquiry into English
tenant right which was presided over by Mr. Pusey. The
opinion to which that committee eame was, it was not
possible to legislate satisfactorily for tenant right in
England, and bow much more difficult would it be to
legislate for tenant right in Ireland, where it went so
much further than in England. He did not think teal
any practical end would be gained by granting a com-
mittee. The information before the house was full and

ample, and legislation was not only impracticable, but
might be mischievous ; while any attempt to legislate
would tend to lower the value of tenant right as it ex-
isted in Ireland. He should therefore oppose the motion.
Mr. MACARTNEY said the hon. member for Lon-
donderry having referred by name to two landlords in
that county who were friends of his, he wished to say a
few words. He objected strongly to the practice of in-
troducing the names of persons in that house who were
not able to answer for themselves. (Hear.) In no county
was tenant right more established than in that, and yet
there were some landlords who had no tenant right on
their estates. Any attempt at legislation so as to touch
that system would be disadvantageous to the tenant, for
while the landlords were now content t 3 let things re•
main as they were, if you came to legislate, the land-
lords, especially in an English House of Commons,
would recover many rights which they did not now pos-
seas, It was not worth while to discuss this subject
now, when there was an adjourned debate on the ques
tion now before the house ; and he thought it would be
better to proceed at once to a division, and negative the
motion,

Mr. C. FORTESCUE appealed to his hon. fiend
whether it was Worth while to preen his motion. He
(Mr. Fortescue) had a strong feeling in favour of the
tenant right of Ulster. There might be objections to it,
but he believed it to have been one main cause of the
great prosperity of the north of Ireland. It had been a
check on the evil of extravagant compe.ition for land in
Ireland. But in the interests of Ul-ter itself, he ob-
jected to the inquiry sought. Tenant right was so
various, it was almost impossible to embody it in any
scheme of legislation.. The probable result of the copy
of inquiry, if it was obtained, would be that it would
come to the same conclusion as that which inquired into
tenant right in England—namely, that legislation was
impossible.
Mr. P. O'BRIEN advised his hon. friend to withdraw
hi 4 motion, because at present tenant right, as it ex-
isted in the north of Ireland, was accepted, and it was
not desirable to raise up any points of difference on the
subject.
Mr. GREER said he did not feel himself at liberty to
withdraw the motion.
The house divided. The numbers were—
For the motion
Against it
COUNTY FRANCHISE (SCOTLAND).
_ _ _

Mr. CAIRD, in moving for leave to bring in a bill to
assimilate the county franchise of Scotland with that of
England, said he did noti Beek to introduce any new

'rliTchise, but wished to emend to Scotland those privi

leges and rights which were enjoyed in this country. A
brief statement would suffice to show the distinction be-
tween England and Scotland with regard to the fran-
chise. Every 20 persons iu Eng'and were in some de-
gree represented by an elector, but in Scotland there
was only one elector for 34 persons. Of the county elec-
tors in England four-fifths were freeholders and one-fifth
only occupying tenants, whereas in the counties of
Scotland two-fifths were owners, and three-fifths were
occupying tenants. The occupying tenants both in Eng-
land and Scotland did not occupy that independent po-
sition with regard to the franchise which was possessed
by the freeholders. In England a proprieter of land to
the extent of 40s. enjoyed the franchise, and such a pro-
perty might be purchased at a price varying from 301. to
501. In Scotland five times that amount was necessary
to attain the same object, and therefore it was Ave times
mere difficult to become an elector on the north side of
the Tweed than on the south. Whilst in England a
property which did not confer a borough franchise con-
ferred a county franchise, if it exceeded 405., in Scot-
land there was no similar franchise. Hence the classes
of voters in the two countries were very different, and
the labouring and artisan population in Scotland were,
to a great extent, unenfranchised. The distinction be-
tween the two countries was made by the Reform Bill.
roe result Wee that the county constituency in Scotland
was limited to the owner and occupying tenant, and at
every contested election it was a recognised rule by both
Whigs and Tories that the tenant should follow the
course taken by the landlord. Although there was ap-
parently a larger number of electors than before the pas-
sing of the Reform Bill, practioady there had been no
extension. Of the 50,000 county voters in Scotland
30,000 were tenant farmers and 20,000 landlords. The
tenant farmers, who were a very intelligent class of men,
possessed a considerable amount. of capital. The farm-
ing capital employed in Scotland was not less than
50,000,000/. ; and although they constituted the ma-
jority, no member was returned to represent their in-
terests. He had no fault to find with the gentlemen re-
turned by the counties in Scotland, and believed them to
be a most respectable class of men. But that was not
the question. His object was to give the franchise to
those who were at present excluded from it. As to the
propriety of the 40s. franchise, be contended that if it
wore safe for England it was equally safe f:r Scotland.
It might be objected that such a small qualification
would lead to the manufacture of fictitious votes. The
answer to that objection was, if you are about to make
a fiction, you might as easily make a 101. fiction as a
2/. fiction. (Hear, hear.) There was ano:her evil
arising from the present system, and that was the de-
sire of the landlord to drive the population into the
towns, in order that it might not be necessary to increase
the cottage accommodation on their estates. This had
become a blot on the aaricaltural management of Scot-
land. The system had arisen from the preference given
in several agricaltural counties to the employment of un-
married men, because they could be lodged cheaper, re-
quired less lodging accommodation ; and toe proceed-
ings before the law courts of Scotland exhibited a state
of things that all Scotland must deplore. In the year
sl
efirsti7nagi
irhsmissesrevri vcea.n
alsiccommodation
Po
d frefanrowsehawisraiens w, a
tanhs
uaprosecutedhbiflaeo rc
,d 1 pre-
paredne-
eition,and the medical men to whom the question was re-
ferred, reported that a residence in such a place
n:lLitt
tend to deteriorate the health of the occupier.similar
case occurred a short time ago at Montrose. Such
-tats of things ought to be an inducementintEo
ntahleanhdouse
to extend to Scotland a franchise, which
en-
couraged prudent and economical habits amongst that
class of the population. The next distinction between
the English and Scotch systems was the right of the
English county voters in respect to voters within boroughs.
No suds right was enjoyed in Scotland. Oae-fifth of the
whole ceunty constituency of England consisted of suck
voters. He would compare the state of two Scotch couc-
bi with that of one English county of similar extent,
i pesoca sing resources of a similar character. The •
Ayr andi Lh
earn acif Lk
econtaineds a7,plootom. l a tNi o(n)
nth. f,
irotireies of
310,000, and the 111r11
shieni the Eeglieh counotyhtheorueowt.ere
13,410 08.20077Mt;:03rS more electors
athawu vi
the Ref eon
the population ainhlutatl:PoPulAtion of 345,000,
f‘wthoeSperotcpercty beiieng,
the tight to ne given to boroughs to vote a-ljeteine
nrglyr atvheeaspapmr apprehensions seiaocnhs. were A t
entertained rta i passinged of
with regard t
counties, and ono infieential marnhcr (ix E. Sudden)
,aid that the effect of giving freeholders and copyholders
irk towns the right of votieg for counties would be that
such towns as Birmingham would invariably carry the
county election, add that the county members would be
the repre,entatives of the political unions of Birmingham.
Now, af:er 25 yea-s' txperience, who were the members
i a North Warwickshire ! Two gentlemen who were not
at all likely to endeavour to subvert the con. ertution o'
the country, or to injure its Protestant establishrner,t .
(llear, and laughter.) There was another point of .rim,
ut,portance,not only with regard to the extension cf thi
Principle to Scotland, but also with regard to the aro-
ma Kits of the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting the