The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-31 00:00:00

DISTRESS FOR RENT (IRELAND) BILL.

The Earl of LUCAN moved the second reading of
this Bill. The object of the Bill was to re-enact a clause
which had been repealed by the Bill of 1846, a Bill which
had passed in the month of August, when the greater
number of the Noble Lords connected with Ireland
were absent from the House. It was very true
it had been introduced upon the recommendation of
the Commissioners, but he differed entirely from the
Commissioners on that subject. The law which was
repealed authorised the landlord to distrain growing
crops, and he was convinced that power had never been
abused. The fact of the existence of that law was suffi-
cient to secure the payment of the rent of the landlord,
and its repeal was uncalled for. The repeal had been
most injurious. Tenants now reaped their crops on Sun-
days and during the night, and thus robbed their land-
lords. The Government ought to have provided a re-
medy for this evil, and not have left it to an independent
Member like himself to introduce this measure. The
Lanolord and Tenant Bill they had waited in va'n
for, and it would afford no adequate remedy to
the evil. The reaping and removal of growing crops
should be made a misdemeanour. The power of
distraint on growing crops existed in'England, and it
ought to exist in Ireland, where the landlord bad to pay
poor-rates for his smaller tenants, and was liable for
arrears of rates, which was not the casein England. In
England a landlord could get rid of a tenant who owed
six months' rent, which was not the case in Ireland, and
therefore the Irish landlord ought to have the same
remedy against growing crops which the English land-
lord had.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE had no objection to
agree to the second reading of the Bill, for the purpose
of considering in Committee whether it would not be
possible to devise a remedy for that which he admitted
was an evil.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH thought there could
be no injury done to a tenant by giving the landlord the
power of seizing a standing crop, because, if the tenant
were aggrieved, he could sue out a replevin.
The Earl of GLENGALL supported the Bill.
The Bill was then read a second time.
SHERIFF OF WESTMORLAND BILL.
On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, this
Bill was read a first time.

*UNDAY TRADING PREVENTION BILL.
The Earl of HARROWBY moved the committal of
this Bill.

Lord BROUGHAM looked upon Bills of this nature
with great anxiety. No man was more convinced than
himself of the necessity of the observance ot the Sab-
bath, but ho feared the adoptioa of measures which, by
overdoing it, by straining too hard, should make
the observance of the Sabbath unpopular, and
defeat the object which they all had in view,
He hoped the Bill would be very fully considered in all
its provisions before it received the assent of Parliament.
Why should such a nice distinction as this be introduced,
that you might sell milk and cream, but nut tea or sugar?
Now this Bill introduced this distinction. Again, it per-
mitted shaving and hair-dressing' before ten o'clock, but
not after. Then newspapers were permitted to
bo sold on Sunday, but not Bibles or Prayer-
books. If you walited to know the odds on the
Derby or the Oaks you might buy Bell's Life in London,
but with regard to a Bible or a *Prayer-bouk—oh, no!
you must not buy a Bible or a Prayer-book. These
were a few of the anomalies of the Bill, and
he hoped it would ;receive the greatest consideration
before it was passed. An address, it was incredible, but
it was truo—(Cheers)—an address had been voted by
the other House that all Post-office proceedings should
be stopped on a Sunday.—(ilear,and cheers.) All mails
wore stopped on a Sunday.
The Earl of HARROWBYThis Bill does not in-
terfere with the Poet-office.

- .
'Lord BROUGHAM—Did the Noble Lord imagine he
was such an idiot as not to know that ; but he feared
that the Bill might follow ibis, and he had reason
fur his fears when he considered the un-
qualified and outrageous address which had been
agreed to by the other House by a considerable
majority. Of course they would follow it up by an ad-
dreis that all ships should lie too on a Sunday. There
was no country iu which the sabbath was better ,ob-
served than it was in England, and there was no
great city in which the sabbath was less broken than
London, but he feared that if this course of legislation
was pursued a reaction would be the consequence, and
the Sabbath would be less observed than it was at
present.
The Earl of HARROWBY defended the Bill, and was
(LEFT SPEAKING.)