The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-01 00:00:00

• been made against this Bill. He must disassociate him-
self altogether from those Members who had made so
wanton an attack on the feelings of a large por-
tion of the community. This measure had never
been brought forward as a Sabbath observance Bill
at all.—(llear, hear.) It was only a Bill for
diminishing the amount of unnecessary trading on the
day called Sunday. He denied that any of the working
classes, save the most dissolute part of them, were against
this Bill. He had never come into contact with any
decent working man who had communicated to him
(Mr. G. Thompson) any solid obj,,ction to this Bill. He
submitted that this measure ought to have been treated
with great respect, emanating as it did from those
who had shown so wise .ssad considerate a respect
for the feelings of their fellow-creatures.—(Hear, hear.)
If this Bill should be thrown out during the present
session, he would charge such an event upon its oppo-
nents, who bad made so bitter and wanton an attack
upon the religious feelings of a large part of the com-
munity.—(Hear. hear.)
Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR denied that either the
Hon. Member for Youghal or the Hon. Member for
Montrose was the exponent of the opinions entertained
by the.working classes with reference to this Bill. He
had presided over a meeting of the working classes on
the subject of this Bill, held in the metropolis, and at
least five to one were in favour of the measure.
Mr. W. J. FOX was at a loss to understand how it
was then that the working classes had petitioned against
it so much. In passing this Bill the House would be con-
sulting the convenience of two or three at the expense of
hundreds, and such had been the effect of the Post-office
change. Ho protested against the system which now
prevailed of one party setting itself up as the
judges of all the world, and endeavouring to force
all parties to conduct themselves and spend their
time as they thought proper. He had never till now,
since he had held a :seat in the House, opposed the
motion for going into Committee after a Bill had
been read a second time, but this Bill contained
no principle. At all events the principle, such as it wa.,
would be only partial in its operation. It only applied
to such places as the New-cut; but if the pririciple were
good, why should it not extend to Hyde-park, where the
groom, the footman, and the coachman were all engaged in
working on the Sunday ? The Sabbath at the present time
was very becomingly observed in the metropolis, and
he was glad of it. It served as an illustration of the
good sense of the people, and he warned the House
not to disturb that state of things, or they might drive
the people to extremes, and produce irreparable mischief.
Mr. HEALD wished to make only one observation.
He admitted that the Sabbath to some extent was ob-
served in London, but by no means to the extent that it
was in the country, and hence the desire to confine the
operation of this Bill to the metropolis.
The amendment was withdrawn with leave.
On the question that the Bill be withdrawn,
Mr. ANSTEY announced his intention to oppose any
Bill of this sort, or for the better observance of the
Sabbath, no matter from what party it came.; The House
had no more right to legislate upon this subset than it
had to forbid idolatry. This was one of those matters
which neither the House nor the Government had any
right to interfere with.
Sir G. GREY said, the object of this Bill had been
very much misunderstood. He was glad that it had
been withdrawn at this period of the session.—(Hear.)
The only way to obviate the necessity for passing a Bill
of this nature was the adoption of some plan amongst
employers of paying wages on Friday instead of Satur-
day; and he really did hope the examples which had
been mentioned in the course of the debate on this Bill
would be extensively followed.
Alderman COPELAND was glad the Right Hon.
Baronet had referred to this subject, and bore his testi-
mony to the advantage which resulted from the practice
of paying wages on Friday.
The Bill was then withdrawn. ,
The Ecclesiastical Residences, &c. (Ireland) Bill, the
Churches and Chapels (Ireland) Bill, and the Clergy
(Ireland) Bill, which stood for second -reading to-day,
were withdrawn.
The Distress for Rent (Ireland) Bill, and the Small
Tenements (Ireland) Bill, which also stood for second
reading to-day, were postponed till Friday.
WEIGEITS AND MEASURES BILL.

Sir J. DUCK WOATH said it was not his intention
:his session to proceed with this Bill, though he was
'ully convinced that some alteration in the law
was necessary with regard to weights and measures.
He hoped, therefore, that the Government would
introduce some measure on the subject next session, and
if they did not that they would support him in the event
of his brineing in one himself. He concluded by moving
that the Bill be read a third time this day three months.
Mr. HUME hoped that no measure would be intro-
duced respecting weights and Measures, except by the
Government.
After some further observations the amendment was
agreed to.
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) (No. 2)
BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. R. FOX was understood to support the Bill.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD moved that it be read a second
time this day three months.
Mr. HUME thought the Government ought to state
what course they intended to adopt with regard to the
measure.
Sir G. GREY observed, that though he agreed with
some of its previsions, he thought that many of the
clauses were very objectionable. He considered the Bill
was not one which ought to receive the sanction of the
House without further consideration.
M. DICKSON was understood to oppose the Bill.
Sir H. W. BARRON said the effect of the Bill was
to assimilate to a certain extent the law of Ireland
to that isf England. As Vie law now stood, after a land-
lord had instituted an expengive law suit to recover the
possession of certain I Ind from a tenant who might owe
him considerable arrears of rent, the tenant might, as
soon as possession was recovered, by stealth, and by the
rid and eve' eanee of a reels, heeek in 1;7,n the lend
and held it in soi'e et. the reutoee-rence ot the land:ord.
Theueh this prlit:tk,; vi con.rary to all ifee ice and
coesneen ..4!!ITe the lantrord conlel net tarn out the per-
son unlesa he instituted a second law suit. In fact in
nine cases-out of ten the landlord was the aggrieved
party in Ireland, and the leaning of persons
in authority was always against them, and in favour of
the illegslity and injustice of the proceedings by the
tenantry. He would ask a British House of Com-
mons it it would countenance a state of things
which allowed defaulting tenants to carry off
crops even on Sundays in spite of the remon-
strances of the landlord, and in the face of the autho-
rities, who ought to repress instead of inciting such
a proceeding. All who voted against the second reading
ot the Bill would, in fact, be parties to the continuation
of this system, which had an demoralizing a tendency on
the peasantry of the country.
Mr. REYNOLDS said the Hon. Baronet had made
an unfounded charge against his fellow-countrymen of
the truant class, and had said they were robbers and
swindlers, and persons guilty of frauds by wholesale.
Sir W. BARRON denied that he bad used those words.
Mr. REYNOLDS said he clearly understood the
Hon. Member to call the tenantry robbers, cheats, and
swindlers, and that they who voted for the second read-
ing of the Bill would be sanctioning their conduct. He
also had said that the Irish landlords were a calum-
niated and oppressed class of persons, and that the
tenantry were quite the reverse. Mr. Reynolds then
referred to the statements of the Rev. Mr. Osborne, an
English clergyman who had lately travelled through the
country, to show that this account of the Honourable
Baronet was incorrect and that the landlords were
the oppressors of the tenantry. This Bill had been in-
troduced to give power to the landlords of Ireland for
the recovery of their rents which neither the manufac-
turer, merchant, nor trader of this country possessed for
the rec )very of their legitimate debts. If a tenant owed
any rent, the landlord was to be at liberty to step in
and dictate to the tenant when and how he should re-
move his crops. He considered this an insulting and
tyrannical measure, and he hoped the Government would
not give it their sanction ; and he would particularly
caution them against receiving the advice of the Hon.
Baronet, who, he considered, had borne false evidence
against his country.—(Hear.)
After a few words in reply from Sir W. BARRON and
Mr. HAMILTON,

Colonel RAWDON considered that the Bill had
been introduced ander false pretences, and was solely
one for the interest and benefit of the landlord as
against the tenant.
Mr. ANSTEY said this was purely a landlord's
Bill. It had no pretensions to amend the ex-
isting law, its whole object being to give
the landlord a lien over the property of the
tenant which he did not now possess. If a tenant
was to remove his crop between sunrise and sunset—
that period during which many small holders who were
labouring men could only attend to their farms—the
Bill would make him guilty of a misdemeanour,
and ho would be punished with imprisonment, hard
labour, and a fine. Was tenant-right in such a satis-
factory state that they could venture to pass an unjust
and stringent measure of this kind? In the north of
Ireland, at least, Hon. Members had no right to pre-
vent a tenant removing his own property until they were
satisfied that the tenant had no interest in his holding
beyond what the pleasure of his landlord gave him. He
with the view of doing
deprecated any interference, on the Art of the Hoese,
worked so well for the teavvnaanytrywtiotalft leput
es
rt
.0 m which had
personsthe sßhiollu, submitted only enacted that if Mrjor BLACKA.M. au
ldwhheichfouhude
at an improper hour frauduleitl
c
they should be liable to a penalt arer asked the House
ying away crops
it any one could say that that would be a
ninjury to the
tenant, or prejudicial to any right he might hare for
compensation for his improvements?
Colonel CHA.TTERTON was understood to say
y
he
would support the Bill, grounding his opinion u
collision he had once seen in Ireland in his own tfneoigha-
bourhood between the military and a mob of persons
engaged in earrying away crops.
21r. P. SCRO PE protested against an ex parte and a
one-sided legislation for increasing the powers of the
landlords of Ireland, especially at this period of the ses•
sion. and in this period of the history of Ireland, when
the Government hwl refused to do anything to put a
stop to the exterminating process which had long gone
on in Ireland, in evicting the tenantry from their homes
and holdings under circumstances of such unparalleled
cruelty.—(Divide, divide.) The world stood applied
at the number and cruelty of the evictions which were
now going on in Ireland ; and he contended that the
Government must go into the whole question of 1 sndlord
and tenant before they passed a measure like this, cal-
culated to increase the powers of the landlords.
Mr. M'CULLAGII moved that the debate be ad-
journed, seeing that at that hour (twenty minutes past
five) it was scarcely possible for the House to come to a
satisfactory decision on the second reading of the Bill

before the adjournment of the House.
►fir. HAMILTON trusted his Hon. Friend (Mr.
M'Culiagh) would not press his motion for the adjourn-
ment cf the debate. . -