The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-30 00:00:00

ed to call on the hon. baronet to be frank in this matter.

(Hear.) An hon. gentleman had referred to the opinions
of persons about the court ; but a question involving an ex-
penditure of from £12,000,000 to £20,000,000 a year was too
important to be settled by what might be the sentiments or
wishes of anybody connected with the court. He hoped
that this matter would be fairly laid before the public, and
that the House of Commons would not be kept in the dark ;
but he did not think the right hon. gentleman had treated
the house with quite the respect it deserved, or shown that
disposition to lay information before it which it had a right
to expect. (Hear.)
Mr. T. G. BARING reminded the house thathis right hon
friend had promised, as soon as her. Majesty's Government
had decided upon the course to be pursued, to produce the
papers asked for, so far as they were in existence. He could
assure the house that there was not the slightest intention
of withholding any papers; all that was asked for was de-
lay. He wished to allude to an observation which had fallen
from the hon. member far Birmingham, who, having made
the statement, was not then in his place. [Mr. Bright en-
tered the house at this moment.] Ho was glad to see that
the hon. member had conic back. (Lnughter.) The hon.
member was in error in supposing that the incorporation
of the Indian with the royal army would throw 50,000,
60,000, or 70,000 additional troops under the control of the

Horse Guards, seeing that the whole amount of European
troops in the Indian army did nct exceed 11,000 or 12,000
men.

Sir H. VERNEY hoped that in a matter upon which the
future welfare of India depended, Government would not ob-
ject to furnish Parliament with all possible information.
Lord PALMERSTON feared that the matter was not
properly understood. It had been assumed that there %vas
a disinclination on the part of the Government to furnish
necessary information respecting the local army, whereas
his right hon. friend had distinctly said that there was no
objection to furnish papers, beyond their present incomplete..
ness. Some of the papers asked for did not exist, and others
were not in a fit state to be presented, and, moreover, there
were none that could be presented except in an imperfect
state. His right hon. friend had stated that, whenever there
was full information in the hands of the Government, and
when Government had arrived at a decision, everything
connected with the subject would be laid on the table. The
hon. member for Birmingham, in accordance with a theory
which he always put forth, intimated that the House of
Commons were tae executive government of the country,
and that the responsible Ministers of the Crown had nothing

to do but follow the behests of the House of Commons.
Now he (Lord Palmerston) humbly submitted that that
was not constitutional doctrine, but that, according to the
constitution, the responsible Ministers of the Crown
were bound to act and to decide upon their responsi-
bility. Parliament could of course subsequently control
them by a vote of censure, but on this, as on every other
subject, it was the duty of the responsible Government to
form in the first instance their own decision. The action of
Parliament might be necessary to give effect to that decision,
and without such co-operative action the decision of the
' Government might be totally vain and worthless, but be-
fore matters came to that point, it was necessary that Par-
liament should have full information as to the grounds upon
which Government had acted, and the manner in which
Government proposed to carry the matter ,in question into
effect. This was a question which no doubt affected the
interests of a great many meritorious and gallant officers,
and that fact might be one element in its consideration, but
he contended that it was not all, for the question was not
a military nor even an Indian, but a groat imperial question,
and one that involved the interests of the whole British
empire. (Hear, hear.) It was a question which could not
be derided upon narrow or local grounds, but on grounds of
military expediency, as bearing on the general interests of
the empire at large. He was almost ashamed to advert to
the clap-trap insinuations that had been indulged in, that
the Government were influenced by court influences, or
questions of Horse-Guards patronage, or God knew what.
Ho felt almost ashamed to reply to any such insinuations.
He fancied that any Government which aspired to the
confidence of the house and the country would act on
higher grounds and would not be swayed by any considera-
tions save those of public duty. (Hear, hear.) It had
been said that if the whole Indian army belonged to the
general service, the population of this country would not
bear the drain, but if the same number of Englishmen
were enlisted for India, he wanted to know what dif-
ference it would make whether the force were a general
or a local one. As to the argument respecting the exist-
ence of a large force beyond the control of Parliament,
if it had any force, it would apply much more to a local
than to a general one, over which Parliament, through the
responsible Ministers of tho Crown, would exercise a com-
plete control. Again, it was s aid that the general force
would notbe under the control of the Governor=General; in
answer to that he beggee to say that the Governor-General
had control over the general as well as the local service, the
only difference being that the general army had to submit
to general as well as local regulations. However, these dis-
cussions were premature. The only objection that the Go-
vernment made was to giving papers in a state in which
they were calculated to mislead. They had nothing to con-
ceal, and their intention was to give the fullest information.
He hoped, therefore, that his hon. and gallant friend would
not press his motion, or put the house to the trouble of a
division, as his object would be fully attained by the Go-
vernment doing voluntarily all that he desired. (Hear,
hear.) Ile would only add that the letter of Sir Patrick
to General Peel was, one of the documents which had been
already presented.
Colonel SYKES said a few words in reply. If the Go-
vernment would consent to lay on the table of the house, a
week after Easter, the papers he had moved for, he would
At once withdraw his motion.
Sir C. WOOD could not accede to the proposition of the
hon. and gallant gentleman. As soon as he had obtained
all the information on both sides he would be prepared to
lay it upon the table. (Hear, hear.)
The motion was negatived without a division.
DIFFERENTIAL DUTIES.

Mr. LINDSAY moved " that an humble address be pre-
sented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously
pleased to enter into negotiations with the Emperor of the
French, with the view of making a treaty for the recipro-
cal abrogation of all discriminating duties levied upon the
vessels and their cargoes, of either of the two Rations in
the ports of the other ; and for procuring such alterations
in the navigation laws of France as may tend to facilitate
the commercial intercourse, and strengthen the friendly
relations, between England and France." The hon. member
said that after what had been stated by the noble lord at
the head of the Government he might have rested satisfied
with simply placing the motion in the hands of the Speaker,
if he had not considered that it was a motion of a peculiar
character. There were two parties to it. The house might
pass it unanimously, but the French Emperor and the Go-
vernment of France must also give their sanction before it
could produce any results. He contended that the change
he proposed was far more essential and necessary for the
people of France than to ourselves. By our old navigation
laws no goods from Asia. Africa, or Amerioa were allowed
to be imported except in British ships, and no goods were
allowed to he imported from Europe except in our vessels, or
in vessels of the countries from which the goods were
brought. We afterwards entered into reciprocity treaties, and
most other nations had followed us in our maritime policy,
at least to particular stages. In !,664 France framed a na-
vigation law which was almost word for word the naviga •
tion law of England framed in 1661. Under our protec-
tive policy there cleared outwards from our ports in 1780,
430,000 tons of British shipping, and in 1810, 1,600,000
tons. Considering the period, that might be looked upon as
a large increase ; but it must be remembered we had the
wholecarrying trade of the world at the time, mil our fleets
crowded the seas. In 1820 there cleared out from our ports
1,607,000 tons of British shipping, but after the abolition of
the navigation litivs in 1850 the number of tons rose to
4,700,000, so that during this stage of partial free trade we
increased 3,000,000 tons in 30 years, whereas, under the
strictest protection, with all the advantages arising from
reciprocity treaties, he had shown that we increased in 90
years only 1,000,790 tons. In 1858, there cleared from
our ports 6,400,000 tons of British shipping, being an in-
crease of 1,740,000 tons, or an increase of considerably
more in the eight years of free trade than there had been in
the 90 years of close protection. (Hear, hear.) In 1830,
when the reciprocity treaties were in operation, we owned
2,500,000 tons of shipping, but at the end of last year we
owned no less than close upon 6,000,000 tons ; and in the 10
years of free trade we had actually increased 3,500,000
tons. The Government of France, for the purr ose of en- .
couraging her own shipping trade, had levied a duty of 30
francs per ton upon all exports, and 50 francs per ton on
all imports. France, however, had materially changed her
laws. In 1826 she entered into a treaty with us—and the
law of France as affecting England stood in this position :
First, there was the coasting trade, which was still con-
fined strictly to the ships of France. Then there was the
direct trade between England and France, in which the
ships of England and those of France were placed on exactly
the same footing by the reciprocity treaty of 1856. Then
came the indirect trade of France so far as regarded the
colonies and possessions of different countries, which trade
might be said to be entirely confined to the ships of France,
in consequence of the differential duties being so heavy on
English vessels, and the ships of England were also ex-
cluded from the trade between foreign countries and France.
There could be no doubt that France had been a consider-
able loser by her restrictive policy. On the whole of her
foreign trade she had decreased 8,000 tons in forty years.
Then let thorn take the trades which were not protected.
He had shown that the average decrease in the protected 1
trades was 7 per cent., whereas in the non-protected trades,
where the competition of other shipowners was admitted,
there was an increase of 10 per cent. This policy therefore
was not merely unjust to the people of France, but grossly
unjust to the shipowners, over whose interest they watched
with great an;iety. In the year 1787 France owned 500,000
tons of shipping ; in 1830 she owned 688,000. In the year
1855 she • owned 15,600 vessels ; and in 1810 only 14,809
vessels, and cf the latter 10,000 were under 30 tons ; and
3,000 under 1,300 tons. However, in the year 1830 France

owned 680,000 tons of shipping; but he found she did not
increase that amount, for in 1834 she possessed only
604,000 tons, and taking the whole period from 1830 to
1858, the increase of her shipping was only 370,000 tons ;
whilst in the same period the British tonnage was doubled,
and increased from 2,800,000 to 5,600,000 tons. But
then let them proceed to the case of steam. He found
that whilst Great :Britain owned in 1830 82,000
tons of steam vessels, in 1858 we owned no less than
488,000 tons of steam vessels. The steam tonnage of
France amounted in 1830 to about 9,000 tons, and in 1858
to about 66,000 ; showing that whilst British shipping in •
creased to the extent of upwards of 400,000 tons, the in-
crease of France was only 57,000 tons of steam shipping.
And yet it was found that in France protective duties were
in favour. Why was this? France had a large seaboard.
Along the Channel her coast extended 450 leagues; on the,
Atlantic it was 130 leagues in length, and she had 90 leagues
in the Mediterranean. Moreover, all other branches of her
commerce were increasing and extending. During the years
1827 to 1836, the increase in the special commerce of France
was 10,000 millions of francs. From 1837 to 1846 the in-
crease was 18.000 millions of francs, whilst in the years
from 1847 to 1856 the special commerce of France increased
no less than 22,000 millions of francs. As in the case of pri-
vate persons, they often found that the greatest success was
attained by unassisted enterprise, when a man was left to
his own resources and energies—so it was with nations.
When the British shipowner was left tohis own unprotected
energies his success was greatest, and he (Mr. Lindsay) be-
lieved that if the French Emperor should be pleased to
adopt the policy which the British nation had adopted, the
shipping trade of France would be largely benefited, and the
commerce of the country greatly increased. They ought to
abolish all differential duties levied upon goods front our
possessions and our colonies to France in British ships, and
admit them at the same rates as the produce of their own
possessions in our ships. Such a change in the differential
duties was in fact essentially necessary in orderto carry into
effect the reciprocal advantages of the treaty so far as the
Maritime duties between the two nations were concerned.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HORSFALL seconded the motion, and expressed his
opinion that great good would result from this agitation of
the question by the hon. member,

After the motion had been put From the chair,

Mr. M. GIBSON said his hon. friend the member for
Sunderland was already aware that there would be no ob-
jection made to the address on the part of her Majesty's
Government ; and he had accurately described their position
upon the subject when he said that such address, if agreed
to, must be followed by an effort on the part of the Govern-
ment to give it effect. In reply to his hon. friend he had
to state that the Government would avail themselves of
every opportunity, and would use their utmcst endeavours,
to carry out his views. (Hear.) There could be no doubt
that Lritish shipping laboured under many disabilities in
French ports. The coasting and colonial trade, i.e., the
trade between France and our colonies, was more than
might at once be conceded ; but with regard to indirect
carrying trade—the foreign trade with France—seeing that
all other countries, with the exception of France, Spain,
and Portugal, had given full reciprocity to England,
he might express at any rate the hope that simi-
lar facilities would be conceded to England by France. He
agreed that French commerce and the French nationwould
derive great benefit from such a step, and without taking
up the time of the house at that moment by going over any
unnecessary ground, ho would merely add that he entirely
concurred in the views expressed by his hon. friend as to the
great benefits conferred upon British shipping and British
commerce by the liberal navigation code which had been
adopted. (Hear.)
Lord C. HAMILTON expressed his gratification at the
fact that the Government had acceded to the motion of the
hon. member for Sunderland. Still he thought it behoved
the house to ask why it was necessary that so soon after
the treaty with France another negotiation should be com-
menced ? How came it that they had so soon to set to
work to patch up the treaty so recently concluded ? He
believed it resulted from the great haste and slovenly man-
ner in which that treaty had been prepared. He conceived
that that was done for a party purpose, viz., to bring it be-
fore the house at the commencement of the session. No
doubt it had obtained for the Government some cheers, but
they would be only of a temporary character.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR thought the observations of
the noble lord uncalled for, and that the attack made by him
upon the conduct of the hon. member for Rochdale in his
absence was undeserved. (Hear, hear,) That hon. mem-
ber would no doubt receive the thanks of his countrymen
for his recent labours in the cause bf freedom of trade ; and
he believed the noble lord could not name any diplomatist
who would have been better able to carry on the late nego-
tiations with the French Emperor and his Government.
The resolution was then put to the house and carried
12814. con.

TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND
(IREI;AND).

Mr. CARDWELL asked the permission of the heuse to
bring in a bill to amend the law relating to the tenure and
improvement of land in Ireland. He wished to make one
more attempt to settle a question which had occupied the
care of every Government and the attention of every Par-
liament for a period longer than he had had the honour of
a seat in that house. It was a question of great difficulty,
but to Ireland a question of great importance. He believed
that from the time peace was concluded with France in
1815 up to the present date many branches of this subject
had continually occupied the attention of the house. An
era in the history of this question was the appointment of
the Devon Commission, which took a mass of e vidence, and
made a most valuable report. Since then there was no
Ministry that had not endeavoured to settle this question,
and there had been scarcely a year when some proposal or
another had not been before the house for the purpose of
so doing. In 1845, Lord Derby, then Secretary for the
Colonies, under the Ministry of the late Sir Robert Peel,
madoa proposal. In the following year it was renewed in
that house by the present Duke of Newcastle, then Seere-
tary for Ireland. The right hon. gentleman the member
for Canterbury made an attempt in IMB, and another
in 1850. In 1852 the Government of Lord Derby made
a great effort to settle the question, and under the
Government of Lord Aberdeen another attempt was made.
Sergeant Shee afterwards brought forward a measure on
the subject, which was to a certain extent taken up by
the Government of that day. Mr. Moore, then a mem-
ber of that house, attempted legislation in 1856, and in
1857 and in 1858 the lion. gentleman the member for Dungar-
van submitted a measure on the subject. The late Govern-
ment had, he believed, intended to deal with it, so that it
was manifest the question must be not only one of great
importance, but one of great difficulty. What gave the pre-
sent Government a hope of being able to settle it was, be-
cause the condition of Ireland was more favourable at the
present time than in that of some of their predecessors—be-
cause they had greater experience, because there had been de-
cisions of that house, which showed what measures there
were that it was impossible to carry, and how they ought to
frame a bill with any hope of success. The first question
which would naturally arise was, why it should be neces-
sary to deal with the land of Ireland on a footing different
from the land of England or of Scotland, but he might
quote the opinions of Arthur Young, of Mr. Burke, and of
Mr. Mill, to show that Government might take up the case.
Every Ministry since 1845 admitted the necessity in em-
phatic language of dealing with Ireland separately. The
Devon Commissioners had declared that,whereas in England
and Scotland the landlord provided suitable farmhouses,
put up gates, made fences in good order, and kept buildings
in repair, in Ireland the case was wholly different. The
smallness of farms there rendered the introduction of the
English system difficult. In most cases in Ireland what-
ever was done in the way of such improvement was done
by the tenant ; this of itself constituted a strong reason why
special legislation was necessary for Ireland. Since the
time of the Devon commission no more marked improve-
ment had taken place in the condition of any country than
in that of Ireland. That improvement had resulted in
changes which, if they diminished the necessity for legisla-
tion of this kind, operated, upon the other hand, as a great
eneouragemett to make all just and necessary reforms,
whereby the laws might be made to co-operate with the
spirit of laudable enterprise, and the progress of beneficent
improvements might be facilitated. Since 1845 there had
been much done in the way of public works, as well as
by loans and grants, and, above all, by the multipli-
cation of railways and other internal communications. The
value of live stock in Ireland about 20 years ago was
£2l,ooo,ooo—by the last return it was £36,000,000. The
improvement had not been merely in quantity, but far
more in quality and in value. No less than 2,000,000 of
acres had been sold under the Encumbered Estates Court,
which fetched £23,000,000, and he was glad to say that
most of the money was found and paid by Irishmen. This
land was sold to 8,500 owners, who bought it for the pur-
pose of expending labour and capital in its improvement.
in 1841 he believed the wages of labour averaged in Ire-
land 6d. per day ; now it was Is. 3d. The number of evic-
tions 10 years ago was 72,000; last year 2,300. Ten years
ago there were 15 agrarian outrages in 12 months, last year
only 4. Firing at the person, 10 years ago, 20; last year,
1. Serious assaults of the same character, ten years ago,
87; last year, 19. So that offences of this character were,
ten years ago, 123; last year only 24. (Hear.) Ten years
ago the number of paupers relieved was 2,142,000; last
year, 161,000. Expenditure for the poor, ten years ago,
), 199,000 ; last year, £114,000. There was now greater
prosperity amongst all classes, and a better feeling was
prevalent. In framing the bill they had endeavoured to
deal with the land in three categories—first, lands in the
hands of landlords, limited owners ; secondly. in the hands
of tenants, protected by lease ; and, thirdly, in the hands
of tenants who had no lease. In the same year in which
the Devon commission reported, the year 1815, an impor-
tant act of Parliament was passed, having for its object the
improvement of land. That act was applicable to Ireland.
It enabled the limited owner to burden his land by
mortgage for drainage, and to saddle the mortgage on the
estate in certain specified proportions. The machinery
by which the act was to be carried into effect was
through the Court of Chancery. He was sorry to say that
not one single application had 'been made to the curt for
the purpose ©f exercising the powers given by
that act. They thought that the precedent of that act
and of many other acfs, including the Montgomery Act,
which had been in opposition for the last seventy years,

and of the Scotch Settled Estates Act, might with propriety
be applied to the case of limited owners in Ireland. They
thought it might be appropriately extended to other pur-

poses than drainage, and that the word " improvement" for
these purposes might include thorough drainage of land,
the reclaiming of land from tidal or other waters, the pro-
tection of land by embankment from tidal or other waters,
the reclaiming of bog land, the reclaiming and inclosing of
waste land, clearing land of stones, making roads and fences,
the erection of farm buildings, houses for stewards, la-

bourers, or other persons enpioyed in superintending or
cultivating the land, and the renewal or reconstruction of
such buildings, so that any of these works increased the
permanent value of the- land. The mode by which they
proposed this should be accomplished was this—at present
the applications were made under the Court of Chancery,
and, as he had stated, up to this time not a single applica-
tion had been made. They thought, therefore, it was abso-
lutely necessary in 'extending the scope of the act to find a
cheaper and better mode of carrying it into effect. A few
years ago there was passed an act called the Settled Estates
Act, which gave very large powers for amending imperfect
settlements, by extending to them the usual and proper
leasing powers. But, again, the machinery of that act was
limited to the Court of Chancery, and the result was that
the applications under it had been very few. They proposed
to extend the operation of that act in three ways. In the
first Place, they proposed to create a power giving special
improvement leases for a longer period than ordinary agri-
cultural leases; secondly, they proposed to include not
only limited owners in the ordinary sense of the term—
namely, individuals holding under settlements—but also
corporations, lay and ecclesiastical trustees, the owners of
foundations for schools, and so on, following the prece-
dents which had obtained in particular cases on that
principle. The improvements which ought to be executed
by tenants were less extensive than those which ought
to be executed by a landlord, because they extended
only to his particular holding, and not to the whole
estate. They therefore proposed to leave out one or two
heads in this part of the bill. They proposed that the im-
provements to be executed by the tenant under lease should
be, drainage of land, the reclamation of land from bog, the
clearing land of stones, the making of roads or fences on his
own farm, the erection of farm-houses, or the enlargement
or the erection or re-construction of suitable farm-buildings.
Then what they proposed with regard to leases was this :
At present a limited owner under the act of 1856 could give
an agricultural lease for 21 years absolutely without the in-
terventien of any emit. They proposed to allow corpora-
tions to do the same. They proposed that improvement
leases might be granted, with the sanction of the chairman
of the county, assisted in the same manner as in the former
part of the act, for a period of 40 years. They proposed
that building leases which amounted to an alienation might
lse granted, as they were granted under the Settled Estates
(Scotland) Act, and as they were granted under many
special acts referring to Ireland, that they might be granted
with the leave of the Landed Estates Court, if they related to
a larger quantity of land than three acres, or a larger value
than £lOO a leer, and if less, then with the sanction of the
chairman of the county. They proposed that all these leases
should be subject to three conditions, that they should give
immediate possession, that they should be granted without
fine, and that they should be subject to certain covenants.
There remained the third, and certainly not the least com-
plicated portion of the subject. At this part of the subject
he should like, with the permission of the house, to refer
to a case which recently occurred in Ireland, which had
attracted great interest, and which was so important, that
in the last session of Parliament the hon. member for Tippe-
rary invited his attention specially to it. He stated that he
hoped that in any measure the Government might introduce
they would take care that no such case-as that to which the
hon. member referred would again occur. In the first place,
he would fairly avow that they intended to make no attempt
to give compensation for what were called retrospective
improvements. (Hear.) The compensation was intended
to be entirely prospective. Ho appealed to those who were
in favour of retrospective compensation to remember the
history of retrospective legislation with regard to other
measures. And last, though not least, they would remem-
ber that last year a deputation of those gentlemen waited
upon the right hon. gentleman the member few Bucking-
hamshire and requested him to exert the power of the Go-
vernment to bring this question to a settlement, and stated
their• views on the subject of retrospective compensation.
They stated in the most distinct and emphatic terms that
they did not expect retrospective compensation, and that
they desired a sound and reasonable bill, providing a pros-
pective compensation for prospective improvements. A bill
which was brought in by the hon. member for Dungarvan
was rejected by a majority of 3 to 1 because it contained the
retrospective principle. The, hon. member for Dimgarvan
stated this at the deputation of which he was a member,
and he had asked how could he and his friends continue to
press on a measure which must result in failure ? adding,
most justly, "if we had done so we should have deserved
the scorn of this house and the contempt of our 'country-
men." He (Mr. Cardwell) quite appreciated the wisdom
of these observations. Ha had therefore endeavoured
to bring in a bill which, if it did not satisfy all expectations,
would at any rate do some practical good, and pass into a
law; and therefore he frankly stated he had no intention of
dealing with retrospective compensation. (Hear, hear.)
Then came the question whether they were to sanction pros-
pective improvements without permitting the landlord to
have any voice or opinion at all as to the effect of these im-
provements on his land. He thought the landlord ought to
have the power of objecting to these improvements if he
thought they were not advisable. The bill, therefore, would
give the tenant a cheap, simple, and certain mechanism by
which, if he chose to execute improvements, he would be
certain that the result of those improvements should return
into his own pocket. It was also proposed that the tenant
who desired to improve his property should serve his land-
lord with notice of his intention. Forms of notice would be
prepared and saleable at a cheap rate, so that the tenant
mightavoid legal expenses that would be otherwise incurred.
If the landlord disapproved of the improvements, he might
determine the tenancy; practically, however, he believed
this would not result, but an agreement would be made be-
tween the parties as to the terms on which the holding
should continue. He believed that everybody connected
with Ireland would agree with him that it would be ono of
the most desirable results for that country if the habit of
entering into written agreements between landlord and
tenant were established. But supposing the landlord took
no steps upon the notice of the tenant, then he would be
supposed to acquiesce, and the tenant would proceed to
execute his improvements. The tenant would then have
to prove their value and extent, and he would then obtain a
provisional certificate which would give him an annuity.
calculated at 5 per cent. upon every LlOO worth of improve-
ments, or £7 2s. on the XlOO for 25 years. Then if the land-
lord ejected the tenant, he (the tenant) would go before
the chairman, obtain a charging order, accounting for
his arrears of rent to the time when he obtained that
order, and having in his possession the certificate which
would be transferable, saleable, and conveying to him the
certainty of compensation for his improvements, exactly as
the limited order obtained it formerly. Those who objected
to any of the provisions he had mentioned would have the
opportunity in committee of proposing modifications or al-
terations. • The bill would set free land in the hands of
limited owners. It would enable limited owners to give
improvement leases, whether they were solo owners, cor-
porations, trustees of schools or clergymen, and he thought
it would be admitted that whoever succeeded in carrying
any measure that would settle the law on this subject would
confer upon Ireland a great benefit. (Hear, hear.) And
although the measnre might not be of an inspiring characs
ter he trusted it would on that account receive the candid
consideration of the house. They had difficulty enough in
dealing with this subject, and he thought the time had ar-
rived when something like a substantial instalment of re-
form in this direction should be siven to the people of Ire-s
land. (Hear, hear.)
Lord FERMOY did not think that Ireland was so su-
premely prosperous as the right hon. gentleman wished to
make out. The right hon. gentleman was afraid to deal
boldly with the question, and had to deal with it in this
negligent and ineffectual manner. The bill would rather
do harm than good. (Hear.)
The O'DONOGHUE observed that what he really said
when he attended the deputation to the right hon. gentle-
man was, that he would not obstruct a measure, good in
ether respects, because it did not happen to have retrospec-
tive clauses. He did not regard the present "prosperity"
of Ireland as pbtced on at all a sound basis, because he re-
garded it as chiefly owing to the diminution in the number
of the inhabitants. He did not believe the bill would be
found to introduce any material improvement. It seemed
to him that the right hon. gentleman was like a physician
attending an hypochondriac patient, being obliged to pre-
scribe something, he ordered bread pills. (A laugh.)
Mr. MAGUIRE said he was most anxious to have this
question finallyand satisfactorilysettled; buthowover much
he admired two portions of the bill of the right hon. gen-
tleman, if he did not withdraw or greatly alter that most
vicious machinery which he sketched to the house, his
name would be associated with evictions in every part of
Ireland. and he was sure the right hon. gentleman did not
desire a reputation of that kind.
After a few words from several lion. members, leave was
then given to bring in the bill.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland,
leave was given to bring in a bill to consolidate and amend
tha law of landlord and tenant in Ireland.
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES.
On the motion of Mr. WISE, a select committee was ap-
pointed to inquire into the expenditure for miscellaneous
services, and to report to the house whether any reduction
can, in their opinion, be effected in that branch of the public
expenditure.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART obtained leave to bring
in a bill to amend the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland.°

EMBLEMENTS.
Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART obtained leave to bring
in a bill to amend tho law of emblements.

COMMON LODGING-HOUSES (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
THE PAWNBROKERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. HORSFALL moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. E. JAMES moved that the bill be read a second
time that day six months. He complained that the effect
of the bill was to allow pawnbrokers to charge a duplicate
ticket of one halfpenny on all pledges under five shillings,
which they were prtclnded from charging under the exist-
ing statute.

The house then divided. The numbers were—
For the second reading
For the amendment
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed qn the 29th May.