The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-02 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Mr. FREWEN presented a petition from a place in
Sussex against the admission of Jews into Parliament.
Several petitions to the same effect were presented
from other places.
Sir G. GREY presented a petition, from Torquay
against the recent postal arrangement.
Lord NAAS presented a petition from a place in
Ireland against the bonding system, respecting Irish
spirits.
Mr. COWAN present( d a petition from the Edin-
burgh and Glasgow Railway Company against the Rail-
way Audit Bill.
LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL

Mr. PUSEY moved the third reading of this Bill,
and stated that he proposed to extend its operation to
Ireland. He trusted he would receive the support of
Irish Members, for if the Bill did not answer the ex•
pectations of its promoters, it could do no harm.
Colonel SIBTHORP moved that it be read a third
time that day six months. He believed that the Bill
would give rise not only to great difficulties, but to end-
less litigation, and would, besides, unsettle all those ex-
cellent arrangements which had hitherto existed between
landlords and tenants, and conduced t 3 the interest of
both.
Sir JOHN Y. BULLER objected to the Bill being
extended to Ireland, on the ground that if it did not
effect much good it could do no harm. It was their
business, before they passed any measure, to ascertain
that it would not be altogether a nullity in regard to its
operation. The Bill, he thought, was full of objections,
the chief being that it would open the door to constant
and continued litigation. There were so many difficulties
in the way of carrying out such a measure as this that
he hoped it would not be further persevered in.
Mr. SHA.RMAN CRAWFORD said he should raise
the questicn that the Bill be not extended to Ireland
after the House had disposed of the third reading.
Mr. PUSEY said there would be no difficulty in
putting the Bill into operation, and as it would confer
great benefit upon the country he trusted the House
would allow it to pass into a law. There was nothing
theoretical in the Bill; on the contrary, the system which
it legalised bad been in force for years.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER should not have risen had it
not been for the latter statement of the last speaker.
He denied that the system propounded by this Bill was
already in force, certainly it was not in Lincolnshire, the
county with which he was connected. No doubt the
customs of landlords in that county were exceedingly
liberal, but that arose from no compulsory cause, but
rather frcm the good understanding which fortunately
existed there between landlord and tenant.
Mr. MICULLAGH could net vote for the third read-
ing, because the Bill embraced Ireland.
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND considered this Bill
mo.t objectionable; it was, in fact, an attempt to
interfere with the rights of private property. Now
the House never sanctioned such an interference unless
it were for the •public good,, such as in the case of a
railrc a-I. There was, however, no public necessity for
the interference proposed by the Bill, and he should cer-
tainly vote for the amendment, being firmly convinced
that -if the Bill passed into a law, instead of benefiting,
the tenant, it would give rise to everlasting disputes be-
tween landlords and tenants. The Hon. Member for
Berkshire, who bad charge of the Bill, ought to be the
last man to talk about teaching landlords how to manage
their estates, for if the Times' Commissioner was to be
relied on, the Hen. Member's farm was badly managed
and over-stocked with lean sheep.—(Laughter.)
Mr. PUSHY claimed the right of reply on the ground
that if his character as a politicise had not been attacked
at least his character as a tradesman had.—(No, no.)
He denied the statement cf the Hon. Baronet who had
just sat down.
Mr. HENLEY thought, too, that the Hon. Member's
character as a farmer bad been attacked, but the Hon.
Baronet who made the attack forgot to mention that the
observations of the Times' Commissioner only applied to
the Hon. Member's water meadows. The writer eulo-
gised the general management of the Hon. Member's
farm, but found fault with his practice of feeding lean
sheep on water meadows.—(A laugh.)
The House then divided, when there appea.
Forthe amendment ... 17
Against it ... s.. ... 53
Majority against it ... —36

On entering the Railer 3, we found
Mr. MULLINGS moving the following clause:—
" And with a view of preventing or lessening the evils of
the right to emblemente, as well as the loss and injury
to tenants holding under landlords having limited
interests, be 'it entieted, that whero the lease or
tenancy of a farm held by a tenant at rack rent shall
determine by the death or cesser of the estate of any
landlord entitled for his life, or for any other limited in-
terest, the tenant shall continue to hold and occupy the
farm until the expiration of the then current year, and
shall then quit upon the terms of his lease or holding,
in the same manner as if such lease or tenancy were then
determined by efauxion of time or other lawful means
during the continuance of his landlord's estate, and the
succeeding landlord shall bo entitledito recover and re-
ceive of the tenant, in the same manner as his predeces-
sor could have done if living, a fair proportion of the
rent for the period which may have elapsed from the day
of the death or cesser of the estate of such predecessor
to the time of the tenant so quitting, and the suc-
ceeding landlord and the tenant respectively shall, as
between themselves and as against each other, be entitled
to all the benefits and advantages and be subject to the
restrictions to which the preceding landlord and such
tenant respectively would have been entitled and subject,
in case the lease or tenancy had determined in manner
aforesaid at the expiration of such current year."
Mr. PUSEY intimated that he should not oppose the
clause.

The clause was then agreed to.
Mr. MULLINGS then zaoved a clause to the effect—
" That in case the growing crops of the tenant of any
farm shall be seized and sold by any sheriff or other officer,
by virtue of any writ of fieri tacias, or other writ of ex-
ecution, such crops shall, so long as the same shall
remain upon the faxm, be liable to the rent which may
accrue and become due to the landlord after any such
seizure 2.nd sale, and to the remedies by distress
and otherwise for recovery of such rent, and that not-
withstanding any bargain and sale or assignment which
may have been made or executed of such crops by any
such sheriff or other officer."

The clause was agreed to witheni a division.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD then moved that the
Bill should not extend to Ireland. The Hen. Gentle-
men entered at some length into the history of the
Legislative enactments for the landlord and tenant
question in Ireland. He contended that though the pre-
sent Bill might be suitable to England it was in no way
suitable for Ireland. He called upon the House to re•
member the great i3ifft!rence of the relation between
landlord and tenant in England and Ireland. He ob-
jected, in the present state of the feelings of the Irish
people, to accept this imperfect legislation; ho thought
it would be unjust to suprort their half-measure at a time
when Ireland expects d some full and pc' feet measure.
Mr. M'CULLAGH seconded the amendment.

Mr. HENRY HERBERT opposed the amendment.
Ho was certainly astonished at the course which
the Honourable Scc:;nder of the amendment had
taken, upon tho present occasion. Last year he had
voted for the third reading of the Bill of that session,
hich was exactly the same Bill as the present Bill, and
now he opposed the Bill. The Hon. Mover of the
amendment, too, last year supported the extension of
the Bill to Ireland, and now he opposed it.
He could not understand the change of conduct
is these two gentlemen. He condemned the
agitation which had been raised by the Hon. Member
fur Rochdale upon this question, and be thought that
those gentlemen who made such demands for the
tenants of Ireland were not their best friends.
He did not look upon this Bill as a final settlement of the
landlord and tenant question in Ireland, and ho must be

permitted to express his regret that Government had
thrown over for this session, at least, the Bill
of the Right Honourable Secretary for Ireland.
If ever there was a time when such a Bi I
ought to be persevered in the present was that time, and
atter the hopes that were held out to Ireland
in the Speech from the Throne, it was highly
impolitic to withdraw the Bill to which he had
just referred. The landlords of Ireland ought
to take this opportunity of coming forward
with concessions, and bring this question to speedy set-
tlement. In the meantime he called upon the House
to pass this Bill in its integrity and reject the amend-
ment of the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale.
Mr. M'CULLAGH said circumstances had changed
since this measure was before the House last session. It
was now too late to put this Bill off as a settlement of this
vexed question, and he, therefore, blamed Government
for neglect in the past few months. They
ought to have passed a 1301 on this
subject long ago, but the fere could not
be disguised that the landlord interest predominated in
that House. That feeling had already gained a strong
hold of the tenants of Ireland, and vthatever taunts
might be thrown out against him of fostering discontent
in Ireland, he would still persist in declaring that th
occupier of land in Ireland had not been fairly
dealt with either by the Government or the House. The
people of Ireland were irritated at the neglect of their
interest by the House, and he warned the Government
that continued delay would drive them to extremes. Last
year this Bill might have served to allay tie
feeling of excitement that then prevailed, and
that was one reason why he supported it then; but now
ltahregep,eolipbleeralo,falerdelaend
empwreohueldesiovnelyeabee satisfied
measure. The
iHth a
on.
tGheentlqemueasntionw,ho
solastfaradadsresseidt three
supporthayoo otherit
not look upon this Bill as a settlement of
wouldwhy mlatedsaidtohe
of the
fact
Then
it
in-
crease the irritation that exists in Ireland. Far better
would it be to discard this Bill altogether, and direct
their attention to something that would put the matter
at rest for ever. eiffnect the
et
tofladrceide

Air. A. STAFFORD could cot help thinking that the
conduct of the lion. Gentleman who bad just sat down,
in the reference to this Bill, was eccentric if not incon:
sibtent. The reasons a hich ho hai statei for opposing
the Bill were just tly)se which ought to induce him to
support it. The Honourable Gentleman said the ques-
tion bad been so long delayed that he despaired of
ever seeing it settled. Why, that was the very reason
why he ought to support the Bill, for it would be one
step towards ascertaining whether it could be adjusted
or not. True, the Bill did not confer upon the tenantry
of Ireland all that they were entitled to, but that
was no reason why they should refuso to take Dome