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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LOADS.—(YEsTERDAY.)
REVISION OF THE LITURGY.
Lord EBURY rose to move that an humble address
be presented to her Majesty for a commission, to cJosi-
der whether the Liturgy of ti,e Church of England be not
capable of such alteration as may render it more profitable
than it now is for the religious instruction and edifica-
tion of the people.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY opposed the
motion as calculated to promote discord in the Church.
He was opposed to revision, av, in consequence of the
divided state of public opinion, it would do more harm
than good. Any such pr)position, moreover, should
proceed from Convoca'ion.
The Bishop of CASIIEL disapproved any change not
originated by a prop-rly consti' utdd body.
Toe Eirl of DERBY believed the alterations that
would be expected from the appointment of a Commis-
sion would not be limited to the removal of trifling aLd
casual blemishes ; it would be anticipated that the Com-
mission would inquire into the merits and demerits of
lbe whole Liturgy ; and to create such an impression
would be a very serious inconvenience. The alterations
Lord Ebury recommended might satisfy the wishes of a
f.w anxious friends of the Church, but it was not to be
expected they would ratiqy the largebody of Dissenters,
who differed from the doctrines of4he establishment. A
revision of the Liturgy would inevitably become a doc-
trinal question ; the changes would be discussed accord-
ing to their bearing for or against particular doctrines,
and the result would be differences within the Church
itself. He hoped the motion would not be pressed to a
division, opposed as it was by nearly the whole of the
episcopacy, the great majority of the house, and, he be-
lieved, the best friends of the Church throughout the
ooautry.
Earl GRA.NVILLE thought the discussion might be
left to produce its effect on the public mind, but the
motion could not be pressed with any result.
After a few words from Lord ABINGER, the motion
was withdrawn.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
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 bad been
created under 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 io Ireland. The hon. gentleman
asked fora committee to inquire into the system of te-
nant right as it existed in the north cf 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-
bourers, and every elev., 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 unrxhauated 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 thee
they were crippled in their future operations. But the
custom did exist in the north ef Ireland, and there wee
no disposition on the part of either landlord or tenant to
get rid of it, and it was likely to remain iu 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 bon. gentleman had mentioned one or two
instances, but he 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 f land, the
amount of population, and so on. Therefore it was ire-
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
cf the labours of the committee of inquiry into English
tenant right which was presided over by Mr. Pusey. The
opinion to winch that committee game was, it was not
possible to legislate eati.factorily for tenant right in
England, and how much mere difficult would it be to
legislate for tenant right in Ireland, where it went so
much further than in England. He did not think tfat
any practical end would be gained by granting a com-
mittee. Tee information bet, re the lacuse was full aid
ample, and legislation was not only impracticable, hut
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. P. O'BRIEN advised his hon. friend to withdraw
his 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 Li:nself at liberty to
withdraw the motion.
The house divided. The numbers were—
For the motion
Against it
COUNTY FRANCHISE (SCOTLAND).
Mr. CAIRO, in moving for lave to bring in a bill to
assimilate the county franchise et Scotland with that of
England, said be did not seek to introduce any ne
franchise, but wished to ex end to Scotland those prii i-
legee and rights which were enjoyed lit this country. A
brief statement would suffice to show the distinction be-
tween England and Scotland with regard to the fren-
chise. Every 20 persons in Eng'and were in some de-
gree represented by an elector, but in Scotland there
was only one elector for 34 pers ms. 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 tenant. The occupying tenants both in Eng-
land and Scotland did not occupy that n indepndent po-
sition with regard to the franchise which was. possessed
by the fo echoldere. 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 Sc Aland fire times that amount was necessary
to attain the same object, and therefore it was five ties
more 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 403., in Scot-
land there was no similar franchise. Hence the classes
cf. voters in the two countries were very different, and
the labouring and artisan poputati in in Scotland were,
to a great extent, unenfranchised. The distinction le, -
tween the two cella:lies was metde by the Re term Bill.
Tne result w s that the county constituency in Scotland
was limited to the owner and occupying tenant, and at
every contested election it a-as a recognised rule by both
Whigs and To:ies that the tenant seould follow the
course taken by the landlord. Althoueh there was ap-
parently a larger number of electors than before the pa-e
slug of the Reform Bill, practice ly there had been no
-extension. Of the 50,000 county voters in Scotland
30,000 were tenant farmers and 20,000 la, dl ale. The
tenant farmers, who were a very intelligent class of men,
possessed a considerable amount of capital. The term-
ing capital employed in Scotland was not less than
50.000,000/. ; and although they constituted the ma-
jority, no me-nber was returned to represent their in-
terests. He bad no fault to find with the o ado,' re•
tarot' by the comities in bcotland, and believed them to
be rmost 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 40e franchise, be contended that if it
were safe for England it was egeally safe f r Scotland.
It might be objected that such a small qualification
would lead to the manufacture of fictitious votes. Tae
answer to that objection was, if you are about to make
a fiction, you might as easily make a 101. fiction as a
21. fiction. (Hear, hear.) There was another 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 lt might not be necessary to increase
the cottage accommodation on their estates. This bad
become a blot on the agricultural management of Scot-
land, The system bad arisen from the preference given
iq Peveral agricnitural counties to the employment of un-
married men, because they could be lodged cheaper, re-
quired less lodgingC accommodation ; and the proceed-
Ingo before the law courts of Scotland exhibited a state
of things that all Scotland must deplore. In the year
1857 a farm servant in Forfarsbire was prosecuted for de-
serting his service. Hie defence was, that the bothie pre-
pared for his accommodation was in an uninhabitable con
dition,and the medical men to whom the question was re-
ferred, reported that a residence in such a place must
tend to deteriorate the health of the occupier. A similar
ease occurred a short time ago at Montrose. Such a
state of things ought to be an inducement to the house
io eseend to Scotland a franchise, which in England en-
couraged prudent and economical habits amongst that
elms 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 such right was enj eyed in Scotland. Oee-fifth of the
Whole county constituency of England consisted of such
voters. He would compare the state cf two Scotch coun-
tained Possessing resources of a similar character. The
counties of Ayr and Lanark contained re population of
ansdteenber of electors was 7,100. North
and South Staffordshire,
bad 20,713 voterswieh a population of 345,000,
English county there were
13,000 more elec.
tors Intlitahn
value
inthe twa Scotch counties,
the population and en nnalal
thei of the property being
nearly the same in each. At
e Reform Bill grave apprehensions were enterritaalsien,dgot with regard to
the tight to be given to boroughs to
and one iielaential member (e7riEaSdjhudniennl
ocuolpdybeoldthcrae,
COULItieS,
said that the effect of giving freehcooludnertisesauwd
in towns the right of voting for
such towns as Birmingham would invariably carry the
county election, add tbat the county members would be
the repreten tatives of the political unions of Birmingham.
Now, after 25 years' experience, who were the member,
for North Warwickshire 7 Two gentlemen who were not
at all likely to endeavour to subvert the constitution o'
the country, or to injure its Protestant establishment
(Hear, and laughter.) There was an ether pout of sum:
importance, not only with regard to the extension c f thl
principle
to Scotland, bat also with reeerd to the argi-,
Wats of the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting the