The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-11 00:00:00

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD wished to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet at -the head •:?f her Majesty's Government if
there was any expectation of a report from the Irish
Land Commission during the present session, and if so
whether the House
Tight look for any legislative mea-
sure founded upon it in the course of the next session of
Parliament.
Sir R. PEEL said he believed the Commissioners had
determined not to make any partial report. Whenever
they did report he (Sir R. Peel) should be prepared,
without loss of time, to make t heir statements ancippinions
the- foundation for such legislative measures as might
suggest themselves. -
Mr. PETER BORTHWICK complained of the prac-
tice of counting out the House when measures of im-
portance were to be brought forward.—(A laugh.) He
himself had had measures of great importance—(A
laug9—and when he was about to bring them forward
the House was counted out.
Mr. CRIPPS said that the Hon. Member for Mont-
rose (Mr. Hume) was counted out last night at the wish
of the Hon. Meinber for Evesham himself.
Mr. BORTHWICK emphatically denied that he had
ever been a party to "counting out."
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY wished to ask whether the
Bill ought to be read before counting out ?
The Speaker's answer was not heard in the laughter
which the question occasioned.
Mr. HUME said that he did not complain of the
conduct of the other side of the House; for he thought
that he was deserted by his own side—(Cheers and
laughter)—when a Bill to repress the stealing of dogs
was before the House there was no danger of a count-
out, but when a question of importance to the public
was to come on the strongest party could count out.
After some further conversation, the House proceeded
to the other orders of the day.
FIELD GARDENS BILL.

Mr. COWPER moved the second reading of this Bill.
This Bill would confer great benefit on the poor man,
and he therefore confidently recommended it to the House.
He proposed that in all future Inclosure Acts a portion
of the land should be reserved for the purposes of this
Act. The land, however, was not to be given to the
cultivators absolutely, but only the occupation of it, and
that upon lease. He trusted that the Right Hon. Gor
tlernan at the head of the Home Department (Sir
James Graham), would not feel it his duty to op-
pose himself to the Bill, for, if it was not permitted
to proceed, there could be no legislation upon the
/subject during the present session. The Right Hon.
Gentleman had sufficient to do in his own department,
or he might invite him to take charge of the present
Bill. But it was the last " straw " that broke the
camel's back, and that Right Bon. Gentleman's avo-
cations were already sufficiently onerous; and indeed he
doubted if it would be in his power to carry through
Parliament the many Bills already under his care. He
( Mr. Cowper) should therefore strongly urge this Bill
upon the consideration of the House, more especially
as it was one .so much calculated to benefit the moral

(177—:—. and physical eon ition of the people.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD seconded the motion
and gave his most hearty approval to the Bill. Wher-
ever the allotment system had been tried, the production
of the land had been increased and the
condition of the labourers had been improved.
It was quite plain to any one who looked at the state of
England that it was not half cultivated, and if spade
husbandry were introduced it would afford increased
employment, and give increased produce. None of the
common lands of England should be inclosed except
such as were indispensably necessary. He conceived
that it was not desirable to give less to the working man
than an acre, but yet would accept of less, so that it
might support him when he had not a sufficiency of em-
ployment ; but %%hen he had not, he did not think less
than an acre would be enough to keep him in compara-
tive comfort.
Mr. FEItRANI) expressed his sincere gratitude to the
Hon. Member for bringing forward this Bill, and hoped
the Government would allow it to become the law of the
land. Thu allotment system answered remarkably well
in his (Mr. Ferrand's) district. The Right Hon. Baronet,
the First Lord of the Treasury, hitherto recommended
the allotment system in the agricultural districts, and
there was no rezion to think it would not answer equally
well in the manufacturing districts.
Mr. ESCOTT supported the motion. The allotment
system, which worked such benefits, was purely volun-
luntary, and he did not approve of the principle ex-

pressed by the Hon. Gentleman, of fixing the rent for
land. He would wish to see whether a great deal of
benefit might not be done without any legislative inter-
ference between landlord and tenant.

Mr. HUME said he thought the allotment system,
though established by law, could he only carried out by the
zeal of the local proprietors. He doubted the propriety
of the Bill. The situation of the humbler classes in this
country was distressing in the extreme, and worse than
that of any of the kingdoms on the Continent ; but he
thought some more searching aad efficient remedy
absolutely necessary.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM would not oppose the second
reading of the Bill. He thought the allotment system
generally good, but believed its success entirely de-
pended on the zeal of local proprietors. He felt sur-
prised that the Hon. Member for Rochdale recommended
in very strong terms spade husbandry and
small farms, but he (Sir James Graham) thought
they were, in many cases, the causes of distress. The
real benefit of the allotment system was to give the poor
labourer enough to engage that time which would be
otherwise unemployed. He was afraid that the machi-
nery of the Bill would require great alteration in many
of its most essential details, but would not, however, at
present, enter into any very critical examination. He
thought it one of the first duties of proprietors of land
to let small quantities of land to the industrious and
well-disposed among the labouring classes.
Mr. CHILDERS, as a member of the Committee,
would express his concurrence in the provisions of
the Bill.

Lord WORSLEY advocated the system of allotments,
inasmuch as it would afford assistance, though not the
entire means of livelihood to the poor man. It was advan-
tageous to the poor man to be able to grow his own
vegetables, but he would not at all recommend the
system of apportioning waste lands out to the poor as
gardens, for they would not be to them worth the ex-
pense of cultivation. He would give the poor man a
garden besides his cottage—not a larger piece of land
at a distance from it. Having expressed this opinion he
would support the second reading.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Wednesday next.
COURT OF ARCHES BILL

The second reading of the Court of Arches Bill was
moved.

Mr. H. ELPHINSTONE opposed it as a very bad
thing—worse than any Bill he had ever known introduced.
Mr. R. YORKE protested against the framing of the
Bill, and if it were persevered in, it wonld be his duty
to oppose it. The ecclesiastical law could be reformed
only by abolishini, it.—(A laugh.)
After a few words from Mr. ESCOTT and Mr. HumE,

Sir J. GRAHAM said, that as this was an adjourned
debate, and he had already spoken upon it, he would
not now occupy the House by replying to the arguments
on the other side.—(Cheers and laughter.)
The House then divided, when the numbers were--
For the motion
Against it

Majority — 13
GAMBLING ON RACE-COURSES.

Mr. CHRISTIE moved that Charles Henry Russell
should be heard at the bar by counsel against the Ac-
tions for Gaming Discontinuance Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER asked
whether the petitioner Russell was or was not a party to
the actions now pending?
Mr. CHRISTIE said that he believed the petitioner
was a party to the actions.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed
the motion, on the ground that the Hon. Gentleman
who proposed it was able to state whether the petitioner
WEL3 or was not interested in the result.
Mr. CHRISTIE said that the petitioner was interested.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE supported the motion.
Lord PALMERSTON said that, in the case of
Wright, there could be no doubt about the land; it was
quite different in the present case. The plaintiff in this
case was only put forward as the screen of other persons.
Mr. M. GIBSON moved that the solicitor for the pe-
titioner, who was in attendance, should be called in and
examined at the bar as to the intent of Mr. Russell in
the action.
The SPEAKER said that the motion could not be put.
After a short discussion the House divided. The
numbers were--

Ayes l4
Noes 3O
Majority against Mr. Christie's motion 16
Mr. CHRISTIE then moved that the House should
resolve itself into a Committe upon the Bill that day
three months. He would offer every opposition to the
Bill in his power.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER denied
that the course which he had taken was unfair. He
thought that the Hon. Member ought to have satisfied
himself that the allegations of the petition were true
before he presented them to the House.
Lord PALMERSTON thought that there was no
occasion for warmth of temper upon either side in this
case. As for himself, he had not pledged himself to
vote for the Bill or against it. He certainly thought
that it would be a bad precedent to call the petitioner to
the bar.
Mr. M. GIBSON thought that the Government had
taken a timid and hesitating part in respect to this Bill.
They had supported the Bill indirectly, but had waited
to see how the wind would blow. He should be glad to
see all penalties for betting or private gambling done
away with, but he wished the whole general subject to
be brought before the House and discussed, and not one
portion of that which chiefly affected the Parliamentary
friends of the Government in that House.
Lord STANLEY utterly denied that the Government
had anything to do with this measure, or took any in-
terest in it whatever. What their individual opinions
might be he knew not, but as a Government they had
nothing whatever to do with the matter either one way
or the other. The plaintiff then before the House was
only the nominal plaintiff; put forward to screen the real
one, who was a man of straw. The Hon. Member for
Weymouth ought to have satisfied himself he knew all
the facts and merits of the case before he had come be-
fore the House to advocate such a cause. Admitting,
however, that the man Russell was the real plaintiff, the
precedents for hearing him by counsel having been
looked into that day, they were found to be against him,
and on that ground alone did he (Lord S.), not as a
Member of the Government, but as a private individual,
oppose the application now made.
Mr. VERNON SMITH said it appeared to him that
the Government had taken a most indecisive part on this
question, and such conduct he could not approve. The
question was whether qui tam actions were useful or not
whether the law should remain as it is, or be altered—
and therefore it was not very creditable in the Govern-
ment to declare, through the Noble Lord (Stanley), that
they cared nothing about the matter. However, he quite
agreed with the Hon. Member for Manchester, that
if these actions had been brought against poor instead of
against rich parties, the House would never have been
troubled upon the subject. Still he was willing to allow
the second reading of the Bill, in the hope that next
session the Government would shake off their indecision,
and bring the whole subject before the House, with a
view to an amendment of the law, and an adaptation of
it to the present wants and usages of the country.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had been applied to by the
Noble Lord, the Chairman of the Gaming Committee, to
know what the Government intended to do in
reference to the subject on which that Committee
had just published its report. He had an-
swered that the report was of a most able
and useful character, but at that late period of the ses-
sion it was impossible for the Government to apply its
attention to the subject. It would, however, he added,
be its duty to give its best attention hereafter to the re-
port and the evidence of the Committee, with a view to
legislate upon the subject during the next session of
Parliament. On that the Noble Lord asked him to
_ _

bring in a Bill to extend TheActlatelypassed until the
next session ; but he (Sir J. Graham) suggested that, as
Chairman of the Committee, he (Lord Palmerston) was
the most proper person to introduce it. lie had intro-
duced it ; and he (Sir J. Graham) in his private capa-
city, and not as a member of the Government, felt it his
duty to support the Noble Lord. And in the coming
session he had no hesitation in saying it would be the
duty of the Government to consider the whole subject,
with a view to the Parliament legislating upon it.
Captain BERKELEY said he would rather a son of
his went to the common hazard table than take up the
art of book-making, and all thef—he had almost said
dirty—practices connected with it. For his part, he
would never give a vote in that House to screen a gam-
bler, just because he happened-to be a rich man, or to
move in what was called the higher circles of society.
Sir GEORGE CLERK said the hearing of counsel
was opposed on the ground that the petitioner was not
the real plaintiff in the case, and had therefore no claim
on the sympathy of the House, as he could not prove
that any injury was likely to accrue to him from any
legislation that was about to take place.
Colonel PEEL said, in reference to what had fallen
from a Learned Judge on a late occasion, as to gentlemen
associating with a certain class of persons, he would
take that opportunity of stating that he had never asso-
ciated with those parties. Till the day of that trial,
when he met the plaintiff and others in court, be had
never set eyes upon them to know them by name. And
as to their horses, he could no more hinder a person
running his horse at a race, than he could hinder the
Learned Judge from walking over the course.—(Hear,
hear.) But the fact was, the vexation.of these people so
alluded to (with his Noble Friend beneath him espe-
cially) was, that they would not associate with them all.—
(Cheers.) That was the real sore, and it was right it
should be known.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. GIBSON said it had been charged upon him
that as a member of the Gaming Committee he had put
questions to the witnesses with a view of exposing
parties to the penalties of the law. This he strongly de-
nied. He had put questions solely with a view of getting
at the truth, and to do this, he would at any time give
every hour and every moment of his time.—(Oh, oh.)
Yes, he would, though, to do his duty as a Member of
that House.—(Hear, hear.) He denied that he had been
guilty of any unfairness whatever, and he thought Hon.
Gentlemen who were members of that Committee,
would bear him out in stating that he had not in any
way exceeded his duty.—(Hear.)
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said he did not con •
sider the conduct of the lion. Member for Manchester,
on the Committee, to have been altogether dictated by a
spirit of fairness
but, before alluding further to this
;
topic now, he must allude to another subject, about which
there seemed to be some doubt. A person had been
sued for 12,0001. for bets which he had made, amounting
to 23,0001., on a horse named Gaper, his (Lord George
I3entinek's) property, and it was, therefore, suppoaed
that he (Lord George Bentinck) had some :interest in
the result of that action, whereas, in truth, he was in no
wise interested.—(Hear.) He mast now say that he did
think the questions put by the Hon. Member for Man-
chester on the Committee, had a tendency to support the
claim of the individual who pressed this most iniquitous
qui tam action—the Hon. Member asked one witness
distinctly if be did not know something tibout 3,000/.