The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-25 00:00:00

IMPERIAL Pee se i,14.-1 ..e; Se.e.T.
HOUSE OF LOR OS, .Line 24.
Their Lonishipe- assembled shortly after Five o'clock this
wining.
Lord CHARLEVILLE informed the House, that in con-
'equence of Lord Gardne.'s rieglectipg to attend his Cerny:A-
tte. the consideration of the Geaseew Bridge project had been
P)4l-eoned.
, The Duke of RICHMOYD observed that many of their
eordsteps were not aware of the great ineonvenience arieing
th to public interest and private enterprise tr,.m su;!1) ni.47-
'eet of duty as the N iele Lord (tiarileoe) had ay:need.
Re was oLrry to perceive the disinclination on the part
of his •Noele Friend to attend the duty imposed upon him
an
should move that a substitute be appointed to sue-
' litiY the place of the ab.entee Member, and that Lord Garduer
.0 ordered to appear in his place in that House on Ihui s-
-0 next, to explain the reasons of his rion-attendance.
;75, therefore, Melt the liberty of proposing to their Lordships
.'eet the Select Committee be requested to recommeed another
'welividnal in his place that the parties may not be put to a
tseless loss of time and expence, and that Lord Gardner be
rMuested to state in hisplace on Thursday next his reasons for
toLord Bt attendinßOg the Committee.
.. UGHAAI considered that Lord Gardner must
have laboured under some misapprehension and did not intend
4eY disrespect to their Lordships. It was a mistake to sup-
Pose that the attendance of Nobles Lords in that House was
eoluntary, as every Peer was bound to attend, arid the
reeedenfscornpelling attendance were numerous, and a fine of
eWI• had in some cases been imposed. In one case a Peer was
"'led because he did not attend when requested, and he was
ve.-emitted to the Tower fwerefnsing to pay it.
Lord CAMPBELL had lately searched the journals of
'the House' in which he found innumerable instances
ar the House compelling the attendance of Peers
IP* only for the service of the House but on
`-orarnittees. It also appeared that all Peers were compelled
eet"lt only to attend in their places when the role was called, but
eeeY were not allowed to leave the House until it adjourned.—
' eLaughter.) In the time of Charles I. they were not allowed
'to leave the House until the debate was finished. He rejoiced
• that the motion had been made.
The Duke of WELLINGTON had not the smallest doubt
that their Lordships had the power of enforcing the attend-
(ee of Noble Lords, and that the ler( hie Lord had not
attended the Committee this morning frernimere inadvertence.
• e thought it totally unnecessary to adopt any measures in
tonsequence.
. The Marquis of CLANRICA FIDE thenght they should no
17: 131 Consider the subject before the House, but with respect to
ese great quantity of railway business before it.. Thee who
ere in the habit of attendieg the Comniii lees had a great. anti
wee
responsibility thrown upon ihem-e( Hear, hear).----as
thee
e -.1 were entrusted with great and important interests in con-
eteelion with the railway schemes before them. He put it to
;teethe
House, whether they ought not to call upon those Peers
country who had taken out proxies, to attend and bear
,ir share in the additional labours thrown upon other Noble
-e•ores.
Lord BROUGHAM said he intended to move that
_eir Lordships should consider what steps they ought to adopt
'lleonsequence of the immense mass of rallwey business before
ePo• He was about to move that a Committee of the House
the
old communicate with the Commons' Committee on the
subject.
If all their Lordships were to attend, it would be
utterly impossible to get through all the Raiiwey Bills.
',The LORD CHANCELLOR put the motion that Lord
7*arilner be requested to attend in that House, on Thursday,
stetive o'clock, to explain his reasons for not attendeig the
'-tenaittee.—Agreed to.
ABERDEEN COMMITTEE
tA NOBLE LORD said, as Chairman of the Committee, he
gfeed to report that it had adjourned until half-past two
L° oek to-morrow, in consequence of the non-attendance of
A Ormond.
b2•ord ORMOND said he was out of elver, when the sum-
-178 was left at his residence, and that he did not., in conse-
enees receive it until it was too late to atrene to-day.
COMMON LAW PROCESS BILLS.
I, Lord CAMPBELL said, at the earnest request of those
tr„Whose opinions he had a great respect, he had to lay two
k: on the table of the Huse, from which he trusted the
ell° would derive great benefit.—(" Hear, hear," from Lord
e.e.e,,eharre ) If he had bad only to consult his own ease. and
lieererors ;.e would have washed his lands of these Bills, but
et,7lg 6arged with a public duty he felt hound to bring them
t,eZee the consideration of the House. Yet the public were very
hr rIY losing a very great ben tit.—( " Hear, hear," from Lord
.*ei°l.Pgham.) When this subject was last b fore their Lord-
: 4ttPrs the name of a respected friend of his (Mr. Sereeant
the IthY) was mentioned in connexion with if. lie ;vas :err
km e Lordships would bear in mind that he said notheig der,-
: te.,°tY of that Learned Sergeant, or offensive to h m ; on th •
4s-me.
been
he must say that if he had been present he would
4- been aware that what he said ought not o
Ave given him the slightest uneasiness.--( Hear, bear.)
lee:V4eleprehension prevailed in some quarters as to these
etre tes. It was supposed they would intrench upon the
tiediction of the Irish Courts, and prove prejudicial to the
sion of the law in Ireland, hut he could assure their
ktro:l4hips that a greater mistake could hardly have been fallen
in 1448 He hoped, however, upon a reconsideration of the
ere in the other House, those misapprehensions would
t hs and the Bill would meet with a better fate.
kiord BROUGHAM agreed with his Noble and Learned
end, that portions of the measure had been grossly mis-
'Tete •
Pee ended.
rl LORD CHANCELLOR felt that he owed the Hon.
eld Learned Sergeant some apology for an observation which
reirk fallen from him on a former occasion. He had re-
Ate, be that c, these Bills were sacrificed to a joke," but at the
". made that remark lie was not aware that any corres-
-11;:rlee had passed on the subject between the Noble and
N "ensared Lord and the Hon. and Learned Sergeant. He made
lete‘k, however, in perfect good humour, and with no
.leelltioe of wounding the feelings of the Hon. and Learned
liteaut.
be Bills were then read a first time.
.et PROTESTANTISAI IN MADEIRA.
- "l'e Noses Aleecenis said, perhaps their Lordships would
k
it him to take that opportunity of putting a question to the
4}, Lord opposite regarding certain events which had lately
lecplace in the island of Madeira. He had been induced to
4fteethis question before their Lordships from a strong feeling
'its great injustice of the case. The sufferer had still been
ette-e to obtain redress for the injury which had been done to
;See'eleld the same system of persecution was still practised to-
-14e-g e most respectable medical man in the island of
t_
'ltleite, a Scotchman by birth and a Presbyterian by
the This gentleman had resided for a long time
flew island, and had obtained the respect of all who knew him.
iiSt as a gentleman of great prudence, of sound juttgment,
leet'lie 'bight say, of moderation in his views, notwithstanding
et, had exposed himself to the persecution of some of the
eseirities in the island. The Noble Lord then detailed with
hts„ ,114inuteness the course of proceeding which Dr. Kalley
tPee ted after his imprisonment. Having appealed in vain to
te,,;ePrinr tribunals at Lisbon, he was liberated on the Ist of
ty, r7,s 1'444, after the remonstrances of Lore Howard. In
./i4 e. Jur. Kalley wrote to Lord Aberdeen of the injuries
ttee;: experienced, and it was not till the 12th of
l following that he learned that on the 7th of
.13,,i4ebee previous his case had been decided egainst him.
41% 4 the woman Maria Joacquina, whose CASE. he had
lleest7l Mentioned, twenty-two other inhabitants of the island
441 s similarly persecuted for apostate, and a large body of
1,4' Ilead.,/ • • , ,-,
,t ,_i *-, by the British Conservator, sent to exterminate
, ',no professed doctrines condemned by the Catholics.
"re,te bets were not asserted alone by the •ufferers er repre-
keel 'I those aggrieved, but corroborated by a friend of his
1,, lireadathane's), and their truth could nor be doubted.
/tittle °tild ask his .able Friend what this treaty was fire, if it
s:elle,4`4 to permit British subjects to wor,hip in their own
Le h;,e-houses, and to Ni h ' celrate their reous rites without
option whatever? eb
He should be li
ha gippy to hear from ohle Friend what rights and privileges British subjects
%, ke',l, in the isle of Maderia, after the treatment which
Ilees,,l4wY had received 'at the hands of the Portuguese
tekeee-elent
5„...91-„AI;ERDEEN said, although the Noble Lord had read
L'ele%tiguese treaty once, he would have done well to have
NO, eegeelre The treats was protective for Portuguese sub-
,-;..(1 at the same time gave them no power of aggression.
teNe'3f Dr. Kalley, who was a Presbyterian, from the pro-
h_Nt the* "I his fellow-labourers in. this country, he suspected
o,,,il,3:ntlernan did not always indulge in very select lan-
teN eeii regard to the yeligien of the State—the Roman Ca-
Vette la um). He was in the hebit of preaching in the Por-
eseis e
lguage, and however much the natives might benefit
Ooll„rredlcations, he thought his coutrymen did not derive
tte] l'tlefaction front th .in There aln cbj•ic of the privileges
te!t. Y granted were by the treat y of 1.00 dee,' ire,' as fol.
Sbirl That British subjects should have free permission to
cotes " own forms of religious worship as freely as the
to et,' With the exeeption that their chapels shculd
Let
eiThie the exterior like private houses and without.
t.
practice existed to the present day. It
)Ztx. yeeollected that it was only last year that all the
04'4'1 against the privileges of Roman Catholics were
tte`tieseeeeto in this country. It was only as recent as the
Veses7e'een Anne that it was felony by the law for converting
5.:7,4 tiTat to Roman Catholicism. And any Portuguese
ICllerkit"4 enactment would naturally think he was entitled. to
title: ,flt• In Portugal, however, there had been no m-
e r InY person having been put to death for religious prin-
IL el teee the time of Martin Gonsalves. As far as the pri-
-oel et. British subjects under the treaty were concerned,
,04,11:re intact, and would be resolutely maintained, and
et,e ri r, Kalley, in the system of proselytism which, he
hi', eat, Pursuing, bad acted contrary to law, yet, perhaps; he
Vest,Pnnishable to the extent which it had been originally
Cite'r to apply. The authorities had acted prematurely and
10,sete!.• In consequence of the irregular proceedings of the
stleeCles in incarcerating him, he (Lord Aberdeen) had
,:,etti-e,,st‘Teenary of the loss which he had sustained, and the
V al-e!tieo which he ought to receive. The amount had
hied „eyed by the Portuguese Government, and had been
Is?4ee°' but before the payment of the sum. ,Dr. Kelley
IsLlsee,• to Lisbon. But as he subsequently wished to return
l'' '4 iti.ta, he said he would give up all claims to any compen-
ielttto -i.°lll the Portuguese Government. if they would allow
t.,Ni,:t4rl4. He bad authorised her Majesty's Minister at
Pot teLonsent to this proposition, if it coincided with_ the
tee. the
Portuguese Government. The matter had been
Nre, though he trusted he was not now pursuing the sys-
Ls 4 Lelelytism, and preaching in the Portuguese language,
it,, Liettl filbr,een so offensive to the authorities.
`le,* tree.' \JUG HAM considered that It was a new principle
IL,tetteo• (If nations, that a person who was prosecuted by the
teeNe t ett, and whose sentence was afterwards reversed,
Zty.. eeeive compensation from the Government of this
'elitietlle WAS of opinion that he had no right to c0ur-
t...1;7 e
e, he, -• k•ALISBITRY and Lord BEAUMONT rose together.
erits, 'III.IIIIONT said he was desirous of offering a few
N. oi
Lof SALISBURY—There is no motion before the
et 41174 lee•
IN tete ee-AIJAIONT—Then I shall make a motion. He
Attilttlia‘e one remark. He must say that he regrettted as
1414.1.1314 his Noble Friend behind him (the Marquis of
(Mothere the intolerance that prevailed in Portugal, and
et, reentries tin the continent, regarding religious
Nerl: but he could not help reminding the Noble Earl
Keklss eau he
arid the Noble Marquis of the great
jilttitelNeoaljeed by the missionaries sent out to those countries
it 74.14e,,Oirtsther societies. In this country there were isocie
4 e"° enormous wealth, who employed men of great
e%'ol.9l4eisLeooteal for the purpose of making proselytes of persons,
'ke Ith. er whose country was Roman 1 atholic, to their
4ts Th•
,4:ter, e, Is was well known abroad, and those m ssir-
h etheit'rected not to lose any opportunity of gaining
0,1/4 tielin °pinions those whom they are sent amongst. The
dct...,!, thg. in treaties was that these persons should merely
ice ore it fellow countrymen, and not interfere with the
0101,44,natives. Therefore, if the objects of these socie-
12eltPtio,irri,e4 out, they were carried out in direct opposition
4 „these t_and understanding of the treaties,_ so that when
desies'etekr.r were
.taken up by the authorities, theydi
liZti7te ,i." pr of the treaties, because they d
eespeett th""e ease of prose') tism. He had heard many corn-
Siert, d, Ll° missionaries from persons in a high position.
IL, ity rzerefore, suggest the adoption of what had been
et„'We --ieu_444Mended by the Noble Earl, namely, to
ta oe 114,7 m Own statutes, from their own practice, frnm
iktteZeitiow, all that might say, ur of that intolerance which
lostle-4'eedt,„ eftdemning in other nations. The work was
lOtteett to - Year, end if Noble Leeds h.d read het volume
et tee this subject; as he had -done, thee, e. mile have
ere were many statutes which were a disgrace to
1iti.4144.
He would conclude by putting this question to

(the Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack, whet Fe-, before
that evenirim closed, he intended to bring in the met,sure sug-
gested in th'ie volume to which he had alluded?
I 'the LORD CHANCELLOR said he had never heard of a
question being : ut in the shape of amendment when there was
another arnewlment before the House.—( Laughter. )
Lord BE At/MONT -- I then move for the correspondence
between the Foreion-office and the Portuguese authorities.
The Bishop of SA LIBURY wished to correct a misstate-
ment of the Noble Lord ( Lord Beaumont) with respect to the
Missionaries of the Bible Society, and of the Society for the Pro-
pagivion ~f the Gi,spel in Foreign Parts. He had fallen into an
erroi., and he wi bed to inform him that the Bible Society
was net in the habit of sending. mission ',ries into any foreign
countries professing tile Roman Catholic faith, and that the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel confined their mis-
sionaries to the colonies mil foreign dependencies of her Ma-
jesty.
__ _

fertile 'eyond vile% ny person who was unacquinted with it
might expect, and yet, in the midst-of all this fertility, the land
was uncultivated and lying waste, while ground that could pro-
duce five fold more than it del, was in a most uncultivated
state. What was the cause of this? Why the cause was that
the landlord was either not willing, or the tenant was not able
to effect an improvement. The landlord would not or could
not make an attempt at improvemeie, and as it was pretty cer-
tain the tenant was not, able to do so, he should sit down re-
peating his conviction that Government had very properly come
forward with a measure well calculated to remedy this sad state
of things.—( Hear.)
The Marquis of CL ANRICARDE said he had now heard
for the first time what was the object of Government in ap-
pointing the late Commission. It was sent to lre'and, after Mr.
Sharman Crawford's Bill had been disposed of, to see if it could
not discover some mode for giving compensation to tenants.
The Earl of WICKLOW remarked that he had had no
other authority for making that statmcnt other than that of
the public papers.
The Marquis of CLANRICA RDE was not aware that the
public prints had placed the same construction on the object
of the Commission as the Noble Earl had done ; but he that
as it might, he found noshing in the mandate of the Commis-
sion, which trade; any allusion to the subject of compensation to
tenants. Nor did it say a word about the amelioration of the
law of landlord and tenant ; but the Commission was simply
to ascertain whether the existing law could not be so altered
as to be calculated to encourage the cultivation of the soil and
extend a better system amongst agriculturists, as well as to
improve the relation between landlord and tenant in that part
of the United Kingdom called reland. He denied that the
principle of the Bill was to give compensation to the tenants
for work they might have executed upon the land, whereby
the owner in fee or the lessee was to derive a
permanent benefit. That was a principle which had been
much talked of, not only in Ireland, but in England and Scot-
land too, and it appeared to be generally admitted that some
amendment ought to be made in the law of landlord and tenant
at present existing in Great Britain At all events, how-
ever, he would venture to assert that the opposition of the peo-
ple of Ireland to this measure would be withdrawn, if Govern-
ment would only consent to strike out one clause, the shortest,
he believed, in the whole Bill; namely, clause 28, which
enacted that this Bill should extend only to Ireland. But if
such a measure as this were proposed for England there would
be no end to the opposition which would be offered to it.
Well, then, it was admitted that as the Bill was a violation of
the right principles of legislation and the rights of property, it
ought not to be applied to England, and he wanted to know
what the peculiar state of Ireland was, that rendered such a
measure as the present necessary ? What was the peculiar
circumstances in the state of :reland which made it necessary
for them to violate the just principles of legislation and the
rights of property ? Of all the countries under the power of
Government, Ireland was the one in dealing with which they
ought to be most cautious not to commit a violation
of the right of property. The drift of Government, as dis-
played in their measures relating to Ireland, had hitherto been
to assimilate the laws of the two countries ; and if they intend
to maintain the union inviolate, they ought to show themselves
to be unvarying in that course of legislation. Ireland was better '
now, in an agricultural point of view, than it had ever been
before. The tenantry were not so suspicious of their superiors
as they were wont to be, while they evinced a stronger inclina-
tion to follow their landlords in the path of improvement. The
real cau-e of the existing evils of Ireland was, that nothing had
been done to check pauperism. The population depending
upon the land was becoming greater and greater every
day ; and he, therefore, hoped the Legislature would
lose no time in taking the subject of pauper-
ism in Ireland into their most serious consideration
He had seen by the public papers that the Prime Minister had
been reported to have said, that. in the promotion of this mea-
sure higher motives actuated the parties to it than merely the
considerations of landlord and tenant. Well, he (the Marquis
of Clanricarde) had assumed that such was the case; but if it
were, he would ask was not the Legislature doing all it could
to destroy the good feeling that now existed between landlord
and tenant in that country?
The Earl of WICKLOW begged to interrupt the Noble
Marquis for a moment. He (the Earl of Wicklow) was ready
to admit that great. improvements had been going ,on lately in
Ireland in agriculture.—( Hear, hear.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR then proceeded to put the
question on the amendment, upon which
The Earl of FORTESCUE rose and said he did not think
he would be warranted in sitting there if he did not state it
was his intention to give his most cordial support to the general
principle of this Bill, without, at the same time, in any way
committing himself to the details of the Bill. It was well
known to every one in Eneland and Scotland (though of the
latter country he could not speak from his own knowledge),
that no landlord in those countries ever let a farm without
first seeing that all the buildings and offices were in proper
tenantable repair—( Hear)—or, if not, that he at least gave the
tenant such a term of his farm as enabled him to
do so.---( Hear, hear.) Many instances had occurred
under his own knowledge, of farmers having taken farms
worth a considerable sum, and to repair which the tenant laid
out considerable sums from time to time, but which, if the
landlord was called on to do, would cost him several hundreds
of pounds. Now, in such cases, he would ask what security
had the tenant, unless he had a lease?—( Hear, hear.) He
would be certain to be evicted either at the caprice of the
landlord, or at the expiration of his lease, if it should be a short
one.— ( Hear, hear.) It was to remedy such grievances as this
that this Bill had been introduced, and to give the tenant a
compulsory power over the landlord to recover in such cases, and
therefore he fully approved of it, and was very glad that such
a Bill had been founded on that introduced by Mr. Sharman
Crawford in the other House, and he would again repeat, that
it should have his cordial support.—( Hear, hear.) In cases
where a good understanding should happen to exist between
the landlord and tenant, the measure would be a dead letter ;
but under circumstances of a contrary nature he did think that
the tenant should have a compulsory power of protecting him-
self against the landlord.—( Hear. )
The Duke of RICHMOND said it would be impossible for
him to give his support to the second reading of this Bill, if he
had not heard from the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Co-
lonies that he intended to refer the Bill to a Committee, in
which the various clauses would be reconsidered. At the same
time he did think that the Bill, even as it stood, contained se-
veral provisions which should not only have the effect of law
in Ireland, but which should also be enforced in Scotland and
in England.—( Hear, hear.) It was a Bill founded upon jus-
tice and fairness, and so far from setting the tenant against
the landlord, it would render the position of each still more
sat isfactory.—(Hear.) He would not detain the House fur-
ther, and would not have done so even now, but for the obser-
vations of the Noble Marquis who had just left the House, but
to whom he would say that he hoped not only to see this mea-
sure carried for Ireland, but also a similar one for England and
Scotland.—( Hear.)
Lord MONTEAGLE said he would occupy the House but
a very few minu es. He was ready to admit that the present
position of the tenantry of Ireland was such as demanded Par.,
liansentary interference. He was ready to admit that there
was a vast mass of the tenant population in Ireland in very
great distress, and even destitution; but, admitting all this, he
would ask, did this Bill propose a remedy for the mischiefs
complained of? He had heard reasons adduced for sending
the Bill to a Committee; but, in his opinion, the very same
reasons had been given for not adopting that course.---( Hear,
and a laugh.) Not only was this Bill not in consonance with
the principles of the law, but it would not even be tolerated in
nglantl. Thus much for the landlord. He would now ad-
dress a few words in reference to the tenant, and he spoke
under correction of the Noble Lord at the head of the Com-
mission in Ireland. There was a great spirit of im-
provement now afloat in that country.—( Hear.) And of all
countries in the world where the principle of agricultural
improvement could he effected by chemical and scientific in-
ventions, Ireland was the most adapted for the experiment ; but
this Bill would go far to check and impede that improvement
already commenced by these means there.—( Hear, hear. )
Ireland was divided into small parcels of land called, by cour-
tesy, " farms"' in that country, but which would here require
a new name to be invented for them. Drainage was preposed
to be carried on in one of these parcels, and the water was to
be drawn off and collected ; but where was it to go? Where
was the water to flow ? or, into what channel was it to be di-
rected ? The proposition was an absurdity, and affecting to
encourage, would be the very means of preventing an effi-
cient system of drainage. At present a good feeling was spring-
ing up between landlords and tenants in Ireland for the purpose
of effecting agricultural improvements on the estates.
Lord STA NLEY—This Bill will not interfere with them.
Lord MON TEAGLE felt assured it would stop all such at-
tempts ; there were systems net susceptible of compulsion, and
the interposition of Acts of Parliament, so far from stimulating,
too frequently checked exertion. Southey had describe Ke-
hama as capable of assumingnine characters at once ; but the
commission that had inquired into the condition of the landlord
and tenant in Ireland had proposed that no commissioner should
undertake the duties of adjudicating the rights of property of
the whole of that country. A country of 20,000,000 of acres
was to be brought under the review of one commissioner; to
such a provision he objected, and the Government at least
ought to be invested with some responsibility as to the conduct
and efficiency of its commissioner. He admitted much might
be done for the Bill in Committee on its details, but would he
be dlseharging his duty if he sent it to Committee before he
saw any prospect of its being amended there ?—( Cheers.) He
for one would not advance any measure sub silentio, of whose
benefits he entertained a doubt. Disappointment and injustice
had been the chief sources of calamity to Ireland, and this Bill
would but excite hopes and fears in Ireland, the former never
to be realized, the latter unfortunately too-well grounded. The
only consolation perceptible in the Bill was the words " consoli-
dated fund," hence it appeared that all expenses created by the
working of the measure would fall upon England. He could
not imagine how any Noble Lord, cognisant of the state of Ire-
land and its existing condition, as respected the rights of land-
lord and tenant, could, doubting the efficiency of the Bill, give
his support to its second reading. Such a man might sleep
upon his pillow that night in peace, but he could not see how that
course was consistent with his duty either to himself or to the
country.—( Cheers. )
The Earl of DEVON did not ground his support of the pre-
sent measure upon the principle propounded by the Noble
Lord ( Monteagle), who.had just sat down, that it implied an
entire distrust of the Irish landlord, and he 'shouldbe reluctant
to appear as a supporter of the Bill pledged to such an opinion.
Although he was aware of what improvements might be ex-
pected from the Irish landlords, he also knew that there were
many others from whom no co-operation could be expected by
the tenant; but he concurred with the Noble Lord (Mont-
eagle) opposite, that entertaining the strong opinion he did,lthe
only course was to oppose the Bill. The selection of evidence
under the Committee was supposed toihave been partial ; many
had said that being composed of five Irish landlords i-s recom-
mendation would favour that class ; again it had been said that
the interest of the landlord had been sacrificed to that of the
tenant ; he felt surprised at such conflicting accusations-and
denied them both. No one would have introduced such a
measure from a theory of preconceived opinions, but from a
firm conviction of the benefits that it would entail upon Ireland.
One of the great objects of this Bill was to bring into opera-
tion the labour of the working classes of Ireland, as for, from
four to five months in the year, the agricultural labourers of
that country were not employed. He beseeched their Lord-
ships, in discussing this Bill, to consider the great difference
between the condition of Ireland as compared with England.
In the former country there was a great deficiency of capital,
with a superabundance of labour, which did not exist in the
latter country, and hence a measure of this kind was necessary
to protect those who might make improvements in their land,
and to encourage them to greater exertions. Great allowance
should be made for the difference in the condition of the two
countries, and they should legislate accordingly. It would be
necessary for him to go into the large blue-book before him,
even at the risk of tiring their Lordships, in order to show the
exact condition of Ireland, and the necessity for the improve-
ments proposed in the measure under consideration. He denied
that the proposed Bill would interfere with the
landlords in making improvements on their estates. In his
opinion it would rather facilitate their opportunities than other.
wise. There were large tracts of land in Ireland which would
soon be brought into cultivation and made profitable to both
landlords and tenants, if this measure were carried into a law.
The Commissioner's Report, so far from deprecating improve-
ments by landlords, expressed a ssrong opinion that the land-
lords should make every improvement they could in land, as far
as it was practicable ; yet whatever the landltords might do to
this effect, the Commissioners were of opinion that much in
the way of improvement would still be left undone, and hence
it was, for the object of inducing the tenants to take up and
carry out such improvements, that the measure-before the
House was recommended, The Noble Lord here read several
el:traces from the r.. Tort to the furvg.:l,)g effect, coin-
menting on them •as he went along. Their Lord-
ships would moiled that a Mtwara similar to this

The Marquis cf IMEADALBANE we's afraid that the ex-
planation of the Noble Earl would not be satisfactory to the
religious people of this ceiretry—they would not be satisfied to
hear that Dr. Kalley would be permitted to return to Ma-
deira—to a country where he had committed no offence, except
propazating h:s own religion. His answer was not satisfactory
to him, rot was it satisfactory that they had laws
in the Statute Book equally as persecuting as those
of the Portuguese Government. He maintained that
that was no answer to the question he had asked: He would
also add that the members of the Free Church of Scotland
mould steed competition with the members of the Established
Church of England ; they were liberal in their sentiments,
they were friendly to other churches, and had made noble
sacrifices in the cause of religion.
Lord BEAU ',7ONT said he should withdraw his motion.
The Earl of ABERDEEN wished to say a few words in
reference to the remarks about compensation to Dr. Kalley.
He was illegally imprisoned for five months in opposition to
law, the treaty, and to the Government, and although he was
well treated it was yet thought that it furnished a fair case for
compensation, which would have been given to him had he not
objected to receive it, and expressed a desire to return to
Madeira.
The subject then dropped.
TENANTS' COMPENSATION BILL.
The Earl of SALISBURY said, as an important discussion
was smut to take place, he must take the liberty of asking
the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, before it com-
menced, a question with respect to this Bill which contained a
principle of compulsion, on landlords, with which he, for one,
could not agree. He wished to know whether, if he withdrew
his opposition to the measure, that the compulsory clauses
would he withdreeen ?
Lord STANLEY said the question resolved itself into
th s, whether by as!enting to the second reading of the Bill. the
Noble Lord committed himself to support the compulsory
clauses of the Bill in its future stages. He did not hesitate for
a moment to say that he conceived no Noble Lord would be so
committed. He conceived. however, that, in assenting to the
second reading, the House recognised the principle that it was
expedient to secure by legislative enaetments compensation to
tenants for improvements which they had made of a permanent
character at their own expense, by which they added value to
the estate, and for which sufficient time had hot elapsed at the
time of their leaving to give them fully those advantages
which they loeked forward to in making such improvements
nt !heir own expense. The question of the right of the land-
lord to exercise his right to prevent sueh improvements when
he thought it necessary to do so, was guise open to discussion
in the Sleet Committee. Those who were not satisfied with
the Bill mieht reject it on the 'bird reading.
The Earl re SA LISBUR Y said. under these circumstances,
he should not press any opposition to the second reading.
Li rit BROUs ill k sa•d aei that wa the last day for pre.
senting petitions -gains. certein Bills, he should merely pre-
sent those with which he was intrusted, without opening them,
one of which was from Lord Hastings, and another from Mr.
Spooner, and would simply move that they be referred to the
Railway Cernini:tees on she Bills to which they related. He
also moved the appointment of a Committee to confer with
the Committee of the Hou,e of Commons with respect to the
railway business befere their Lordships.
The moti n was then agreed to.
Lord STANLEY then moved the second reading of the
Tenants' Compensation Bill.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY objected to the
measure, as it would endow tenants wish powers nith which
they ought not to be intrusted. He considered that landlords
should maintain the same influence over their tenants as at
present. For a tenant to be allowed to make his application
to the Commissioner at Dublin without the consent M his land-
lord would he most injurious. He admitted tliat the report out of
which this Bill emanated contained very valu ible infermatien.
fiat ~,e 1 fermi—inn did nor owe its orie;o to the
earties who had brought the Bill forward. He rather thought
it originated with the great disturber of Ireland, and that to
him alone was it indeb'ed 'or its existence. He thought,
also, that the labours of the Commissioners had been con-
ducted with great rapidity. They only remained for a few
hours in one place, unless where they were obliged to examine
witnesses front a distance, and he therefore trusted that no
Parliament would lee:slate on that report. He would ask if
the Commission itself approved of the Bill now brought for-
ward? If it did, then the House might be inclined to give
-credit to it, but if certain of the Commissioners
told them that they could not approve of the machinery of the
Bill, and if they added that the framers of the measure had de-
parted from their recommendation, vi hy then it appeared to
him that every individual in that House had a right to express
his opinion fairly and honestly. This was not a question of
party. It was simply a question between the landlord and his
tenant. The Bill was defective in another particular, for even
what might be applicable to one part of Ireland would not be
applicable to another. He could not speak, indeed, of that
pert of Ireland in which he had never been, but he would not
hesitate to give a conscientious opinion as to its effects on that
part of the country with which he was perfectly conversant;
and he did not hesitate to say that the results there would be
most mischievous. The fact was notorious, that the great ma-
jority of Irish Peers were opposed to this measure, and he held
in his possession a declaration signed by 36 of them to that
effect, and when the House examined that paper, he did
not think it could possibly be that the Secretary of State
would insist on bringing it forward. He did not
think that the Noble Lord, after that paper had been read,
would present this measure in its present state to the House.
The Noble Lord did not say it was his Bill, but he certainly did
introduce it in a long and eloquent and able speech, hut that
speech did not convince his (Lord Londonderry's) mind that
anything could be achieved by this most extraordinary mea-
sure. Why, one clause in the Bill gave the Commissioner in
Dublin power, not only to decide in every case that might
occur, but gave him also the power of inflicting in some in-
stances a fine of Ow. np,n the landlord.-_( Hear, hear.) What
was, this if nos subiertins the landlord to the power of this
gentleman ? He did not conceive that this measure was at all
required in Ireland—at least, in the north of Ireland—and he
should, with their Lordships' permission, just read the " rights"
of the tenants in that part of the country. The Noble Mar-
quis then read a paper which stated that while the tenants or
their descendants conducted themselves properly, and paid
their rents, they should never be disturbed in their possessions.
This stimulated their industry, and caused them to improve
their farms, and what more did the measure before their
Lordships require ? In order to test the working ef this
tenant right, he -fiould only have asked the Noble Lord (Lord
Stanley) to exan.ine into the circumstances of these tenants,
to look at the improvements effected by them. He should
like to know how they were to act with rega'-d to their leases
under this Bill. What they were to do with them ?—( Hear. )
If new conditions were impesed upon the landlords these leases
could he of no use. Why then, without any necessity, entail
new arrangements ripen landlords and tenants who were now
living balmily ensueh together. It was quite a mistake to sup-
pee that compensation was what the tenants required in Ire-
land. What the teeante really required was security for their
tenures. They waisted something to stimulate their exertions.
Again it was a mistake to suppose that security to tenure was
the same with fixity of tenure. Fixity of tenure implied a pro-
prietary right, but security to tenure did no such thing. The
one was mischievous ; the other, well-regulated, had quite the
opposite tendency. On this particular point he should ask the
House to turn its attention to the evidence given before Partia-
-1 ment on the subject. The Noble Lord then read an extract
from the evidence taken before the Heuse to support the opi-
nion he had advanced. His own opinion was that the
improvements in Ireland were great, and that if Go-
vernment left them to their own resources, they would
be still greater. The Bill introduced by the Noble Lord was
disapproved of by every Noble Lord connected with Ireland
(with the exception he believed of two) who had seen it. It
was disapproved of in the other House of Parliament by Mr.
Sharman Crawford, and in fact, it was disapproved of univer-
sally by every one connected with Ireland. That was the
actual state of opinion on the snbject, and yet the Not.le Lord
pressed forward this measure upon the House.—( Hear, hear.)
He had stated his own opinion upon this most obnoxious Bill,
he was supported in that opinion by other Noble Lords inte-
rested in the welfare of Ireland, but the power of Government
was so great that he had but little expectation of their being
able to stop its progress. He would now read the declaration
to which he had referred in the course of his remarks, and he
trusted that the sentiments contained therein would have their
due effect upon the Members of the Government. The Noble
Lord then read the declaration, which stated that they disap-
proved of the Bill introduced into Parliament, and while they
admitted the principle that the tenant was justly entitled to
compensation for all actual; bona fide improvements—( Hear)
—they stated that they conceived the tendency of the
measure as destructive to the rights of property
and as injurious is its operation, and they hoped the Govern-
ment would not persevere with it. And (continued the Noble
'Marquis, emphatically; there are thirty-six signatures of your
Lordships belonging to Ireland attached to it. He had now
said all he intended to say on the subject. He had done his
duty in that House, and he had dune his duty to his tenants in
Ireland, as his forefathers had done before him, and he could
not, therefore, concede the right or the necessity of any appeal
to a resident Commissioner in Ireland.
After a few words from Lord GOSPORT, which were
almost inaudible in the gallery, but which we understood sug-
gested the propriety of referring the measure to a Committee
up stairs,
Lord STANLEY said that he had at all times stated his
anxiety that the details should be fully discussed in the Select
Committee by those Noble Lords who were connected with
Ireland. But he was not prepared to withdraw the Bill; on
the contrary, he was prepared, if necessary, to defend its every
principle. He thought, however, it might be possible to avoid
any lengthened debate en the question, if it were uncle rstoed
that the measure should now be read a second time, the details
considered in Committee, and the discussion take place on the
third reading,
The Earl of WICKLOW was fully convinced that the prin-
ciple contained in the Bill was a good one, and it appeared to
him that the Bill very properly made it a compulsory principle.
Until this Bill was introduced he confessed he did not think
that any man was of opinion ;hat the principle ought to be
otherwise than compulsory, for what was the ohj Tt of ap-
pointing the late late Landlord and Tenant Commission ?
Their Lordships would no doubt recollect that a Bill, contain.
ing a similar principle, was introduced into the House ef Com-
mons some two or three years ago by a Gentleman connected
with the north of treiand. That Bill was withdrawn upon
the understasding that a commission should be appointed to
investigate the matter, thereby indicating that the commission
was to inquire and advise upon the best mode of granting corn-
nensation to tenants without the consent of their landlords.
Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill contained precisely that Principle,
with almost all the exceptions and exemptions to be found
in the Bill now introduced by Government. It contained one
prineiple,however, ehich he was happy to say was not to be met
with in the present measure. The former Bill gave tenants
power to undertake works and improvements upon the land
without giving ady previous notice of their intention so to do
so their landlords. Now, in this respect the present Bill was a
great improvement upon the first, for it required that previous
to any works being undertaken a notice should be given to the
landlord, and an inquiry instituted as to the necessity for them
and their probable expense. The only question then for them
to consider was this. Was the machinery of the Bill sufficient
to attain the object it had in view? For his tart he thought
the appointment of a local commission in Dublin was a con-
siderable improvement upon the suggestion, and he might here
remark that it was only on that point that the Bill differed fiom
the recommendation of the Commissioners. It had been said that
the principle of the Bill was a revolution of the rights of pro-
perty, and he entirely agreed with those who entertained such
an opinion. Ho admitted that in this country the principle
would not be tolerated for one moment, but in the present
peculiar state of Ireland he thought something of the kind was
eneletay—end indiseensahly necessary.—( Hear, hear.) In
thai cower) neiee:terseet could ..or be wade se, the laid,
be-
cause there were cases in operation to prevent it, which could
only be removed by legislative iataferme. The country was

111119' SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING JUNti: 25 J

in effect was introduced into the other House of Parliament by
Mr. S. Crawford, before the issuing of the Commission. That
was iii 1835, and the measure was then supported by Mr.
Wyse and Mr. Lynch, two gentlemen, than whom better land-
lords did riot exist in Ireland. The principle was therefore
not new. Independent of this, he might say, that it was based
upon the most carefully collected evidence. The number of
witnesses examined by the commissioners, in all, were 303.
Of there forty-seven were landlords ; 128 farmers ; the re-
mainder were unclassed. Out of this number fifty-five consi-
dered the right way to protect the tenants was by giving them
leases; chile 146 decidedly gave it as their opinion that the
best mode of securing the tenant for the capital and labour he
might expend on his farm, would be by a system of compensa-
ti m similar to that proposed in the present Bill. These 146
were independent of many others, who gave a more qualifies:
opinion in favour of this plan of compsnsation.
He would read extracts from the evidence of several of the
most important witnesses examined, to bear him out in the
statement he had made. The Noble Lord then read the ex-
tracts to which he referred, from the evidence of Mr. Sharman
Crawford, Mr. Balfe, and Mr. Burnes; the former an exten-
sive landed proprietor in the north of Ireland, and the other
two intelligent farmers, their evidence being to the effect that
interference between landlord and tenant on the subject of
compensation was absolutely necessary. The measure was one
which would secure both the property of the landlord and the
tenant—neither giving undue privileges to the one or to the
other. For many years there had existed a right, on the part
of the tenants in Ireland,l to take away, at the expiration of
their leases, the trees which they had planted during their
tenantry. As the stumps were frequently left in the ground, it
deteriorated instead of improved. So that even at the present
moment the tenant might leave the land which he had occu-
pied in an injured instead of an improved state—whereas, under
the Bill, this would not be allowed, as compensation from his
landlord would be secured to him for the improvements which
he had effected. It was only right that a landlord should not
have the power of suddenly ejecting a tenant who had effected
improvements on the land at his own expense, without making
him that compensation to which he was entitled, and which, if
not afforded, might reduce him to a helpless state of poverty.
Then the impetus which would be given to the improvement of
the land under the security given to the tenant be the Bill
would call into use during at least five months of the
year, a great portion of the unemployed labour of Ireland.
Then the Bill would not interfere with the contracts between
landlords and tenants, only with those who would not enter into
any specific contracts with their tenants. He should like to
see contracts carried out to a greater extent than hitherto,
to see facilities afforded to those desirous of doing so, and that
means should be taken to have such contracts registered. Be-
sides, a tenant would feel greater ease when there was a fair un-
derstanding between him and his landlord. The Irish landlord
under the Bill would be placed in the voluntary position of an Eng-
lish landlord. If a landlord would not place the necessary out-
hous's, &c., on the land which he let, and the tenant was
compelled to do so at his own expense, he considered that a
reasonable compensation should be secured to him by law, in
the event of his leaving the land before he had derived suffi-
cient benefit from the outlay. He was, therefore, extremely
anxious that this Bill should be read a second time. When
it was in Committee, those minor alterations which Noble
Lords thought necessary, would, of course, be made.
Lord CAREW, who spoke in so low a tone that scarcely
a word he uttered reached the gallery, was understood to say
that he considered alterations by the tenants ought not to be
made without the consent of the landlord, but believing that
tenants were, in many instances, entitled to compensation, he
should not object to the second reading of the Bill.
Lord ESSEX said he was one of their Lordships who had
some property in Ireland, and that he should not support the
second reading of the Bill if improvements were to be made
without the consent of landowners, or if the compulsory clauses
were retained.
The Marquis of SALISBURY would vote for the second
reading, reserving to himself the full power of voting against
any of its provisions in a future stage. A Noble Earl seemed
to avow that the Bill would be of no use, unless it contained
compulsory clauses. From this opinion he dissented, and
would hereafter express himself more fully on that head. If
his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies thought it
worth while to maintain the Bill without the compulsory
clause, he would support it, but otherwise he would be willing to
crush it on the second reading.
The Earl of RODEN would oppose the second reading of
the Bill, and would not support the principle of Government
interference between landlord and tenant. On behalf of the
tenantry of Ireland, as well as on behalf of the landed pro-
prietary,
he would oppose the Bill on the second reading and
every other stage.
The Marquis of NORMANBY wished to say a few words
on the subject of the Bill. He was one of those who was op-
posed to the appointment of the Commission, not that he
doubted the diligence of the Noble Earl, but because he thought
it would raise expectations which could not be justified. He
thought it was better that the Government should have brought
in specific measures for the evils which existed in the landlord
and tenant system in Ireland, than such a sweeping and com-
prehensive measure. The Noble Earl (Devon) had not ans-
wered any of the objections which had been urged against the
Bill, and seemed to doubt whether it was carrying out the sug-
gestions in the Report of the Commission. The Government
ought to take upon itself the responsibility of the disappoint-
rnent which would be felt in Ireland from the failure of this
Bill. Should his Noble Friend (Lord Stanley) say that he
thought it probable no other measure could be brought forward
this session to remedy the evils which existed in the landlord
and tenant system in Ireland, he would vote for the second
reading. The position of the tenant in Ireland entitled
him to protection, and to that part of the Bill
he would give his unqualified support. The Bill
in its present shape was obviously impracticable, and
he thought it had better be deferred until the other measures
to which reference had been made were introduced. By
putting forward this Bill against the practical opinion of all
parts of Ireland, they would oppose the feelings of the whole of
the country. It was wholly with this desire that he had said
those few words, and he did hope that the Bill would be de-
ferred until the other Bills of which he had spoken should be
introduced.
Lord CAMPBELL said that the law of England was de-
cidedly favour of the chief enactments of the Bill, and when
he looked to the enactments of this Bill he found that the
Government officer was the person who was to carry them out.
He was quite ready to give every facility to the arrangements of
the Bill, and he should therefore be glad to vote for the Bill, so
far as it went, to promote the advantage of Ireland. But this
was a direct interference with the right of property.
It was in fact neither more nor less than oblig-
ing a compensation for those alterations which
were made upon the estate, whether it was to its advan-
tage or its prejudice. The law, where there was a lease, pro-
vided for the evil, and how the Commissioners could come to
a conclusion whether these improvements were to the advan.
tage or to the prejudice of the estate he could not possibly ima-
gine. If the landlord and tenant were agreed as to the terms
of the agreement, no Bill was necessary. But, suppose the
landlord to disagree, the Bill might provide a remedy. They
were very much indebted to the Noble Lord for his labours in
this field. But during the whole of the time for which a lease
was granted the tenant could not be ejected. On these grounds
he thought it necessary to give his vote against the Bill.
Lord STANLEY—I shall not, at this late hour of the
night, attempt to enter into any discussion respecting the
merits of this Bill. lam certainly not prepared to enter fully
into the feelings of the Noble Marquis and of my Noble Friend
who has just sat down. Those Noble Lords might well con-
ceive that, from their knowledge of their own estates, and from
the way in which they were managed, that no complaint could
possibly exist as to the management, at least so far as their own
experience was concerned, of their estates. But a difference
may exist as to the future, and I do not apprehend that any
difficulty will arise which will at all affect the working of this
Bill. I should feel, my Lords, as if I had no task to perform if
I had merely to answer the objections of the Noble Lord, but I
feel conscious that I have something more than that to do.
And when I look at the objections of the Noble Duke on the
cross benches, and feel that those observations require that the
Bill should be extended to England and Scotland, I ern com-
pelled to observe that there is a great difference between the
tenant in Scotland and the tenant in England. lam aware
that the principle of compensation should be abowed, and that
a tenant should receive the advantage of his outlay. In Eng-
land the relation between landlord and tenant is essentially dif.
ferent from that in Ireland. In either of the other two countries
there was an allowance made for the improvement which had
been made upon the estate without any
regard to the ultimate
benefit of the alteration. But in this Bill the compensation
had only reference to the permanent advantage of the property,
and in proportion to the advantage which a tenant had wrought
upon the estates was to be the compensation, and that, too, not
in accordance with the legal rule, but according to the prin-
ciple which has invariably been recognised as the rule by which
compensation should be granted. lebave paid great attention
to this subject, and I am compelled to observe th it there is but
little attention paid to the improved relation of landlord and
tenant. It is supposed that the mere title of right exists in
consequence of the occupation of the land,
but I am prepared
to show that this is not a fair representation of the positions in
which the landlords stand. They have another and a greater
tie. Almost all the land in Ireland is held by a supposition
that a loan has been granted for the cultivation of the land by
the original issue; and I think that this Bill is very desirable
for establishing the principle that some arrangement
should be made by which the permanent improvement
of the soil should be effected.—(Hear, hear.)
Can you deny that on the vast face of the surface of Ireland
there is room for improvement to be effected by labour ? Can
you deny that in a vast portion of that country there is not a
superabundance,of labour wanting a market ? Those are the
circumstances under which I ask you to give security for
labour. The Noble Lord sitting at the table had referred to
the security given in England by lease, and also by custom
which was recognised in the courts of law for compensation
for improvements effected without even asking the leave of the
landlord. In certain parts of the country it was well known
that the custom of the country entitled the tenant to claim
compensation for having manured so many acres on the surface
of the land. That custom is held as good in the courts of law.
—(Hear, hear.) Then, again, in the case of drainage in the
greater portion of England. Where a large quantity of
drainage is necessary these is no more common system of
drainage than to drain with pollard wood. This is not a per-
manent drainage; it may stand for twenty years, yet,
when ejected from the land, the tenant can come
upon the landlord for compensation, and this by
the custom of the country is acknowledged and acted on
in the courts of law. That is the law and the custom
of England ; and I ask you to apply the same law in Ireland
that is thus acknowledged and acted on in England. That is
all we ask by this Bill, merely to allow the tenant compensa-
tion for the improvements he may have effected. What are
the apprehensions which are conjured up by this Bill? The
apprehensions are that the Irish tenants shall, out of their own
pockets, and at their own expense, lay out a fearful and alarm-
ing amount of money for the improvement of the properties of
their employers. This is the apprehension which we are told
to guard against. I think that apprehension is in itself most
unfounded, for I have no doubt that the tenant will not lay
out his capital indiscreetly or improvidently, or unskilfully in
Ireland, however he may do so in England, where he is pro-
tected by the drainage be has made.
Lord BEAUMONT raid that if the custom of the country
were allowed, still it was left to arbitration what amount the
land ought to pay, but it ought also to be remembered, that
with regard to drainage, it would only be allowed for two
years, and with regard to dust, one year.
Lord STANLEY—I know this, that without the consent
of the landlord certain improvements may be made, and the
tenant when removing from the land, can require the outlay
which he has expended in drainage, without the consent of the
landlord. Surely, if this law be good for England, it may
with safety be applied in Ireland also. But the tenant has no
right in Ireland to apply absolutely his labour or capital to the
improvements of his land, without in the first place consulting
the wishes of his landlord. He is bound by the terms of the
Act to communicate to his landlord his intention to begin
those improvements, and with that view he is bound to obtain
from the Government a form of application with instructions as
to the uroper course to be pursued. He is compelled to sub-
mit that proposal to hislandlord, and for greater security, and
in order that the landlord should know it, the Commis-
sioner is compelled to serve another notice on the landlord, and
then the landlord may, if he choses, object to the undertaking.
And now with regard to this question, and it is an open ques-
tion, whether the landlord may be permitted to place his veto
on the proceedings, and, for my own part, in the present state
of Ireland, I do.not think that he ought to be allowed to
place his veto on the proceedings. Ido not conceal my opi-
nion. I think that if this is allowed it will be a serious detri-
ment to the efficiency of the measure; It 'hag-been objeetea
that there should be any compulsory proceeding between the
landlords and tenants, sad it has been argued that a voluntas7

agreement would be the better system. I think that
it is an important feature in this measure
that there should be one registry office for the whole of Ire-
land ; but, so far front that being a constituent principle in the
measure, if it be ohreted to by the House, I have no desire to
adhere to it. I think that the whole principle of the Bill, if
carried out, will increase the letting value of the estates. It
has been said by a Noble Lord ( Lord Londonderry) that drain-
ing is going on on scientific principles in many parts of Ireland,
and that if we only leave them alone they will do exceedingly
well.--( Hear, hear.) On a well-managed e•tate that may do.
but, on the other hand, it is likely to perpetuate the present
miserable state of Ireland, and hinder improvements which are
so much required from being carried into effect. It has
been ssid that the landlord has no means of knowing
whether the work is done; but there is a provision in this
Bill by which the landlord or his agent has power to see the
work in every ease in process of being done. How can we
secure that this compensation will be awarded ? It has been
said, secure to the tenant a long lease, or give hint a fixity of
tenure. Now, that is what the Legislature cannot do. A good
deal has been said about the infringement of the rights of pro-
perty, and yet you say, secure to the tenant a lung lease, or
fixity of tenure—a thing which it was not in the
power of Parliament to do, and an interference which he
repudiated on the part of the Government altogether. What
we do is this. We will not interfere between the landlord
and the tenant ; give him a long or a short lease as you
will, but if he lays out money upon the land, by which its
valste may be increased, you are not to take advantage of his
time, labour, or capital, and he, being a tenant at will, turn
him out without giving him some compensation for the im-
provement he has made.—(Hear, hear.) The question
then is, who shall decide the amount of this compensation ?
If you leave it to the landlord, it is quite clear he would have
an undue advantage over his tenant. You must then have
some disinterested person to go between the landlord and tenant
to award it. Sonic may ask why not let them go to a court of
justice? But, any Lords, in many cases a great proportion of
these improvements are of a trivial character in point of ex-
pense, and a litigious, angry, Or prejudiced landlord might
drive his tenant to so much trouble and expense as to render
the compensation absolutely nugatory to the tenant. We de-
sire therefore to establish a cheap and speedy tribunal for the
adjustment of these questions, and in establishing such a tri-
bunal we reduce as much as possible the discretionary power to
be given to the presiding barrister. We lay down the
principle which shall guide him, and the arbitrator will
thus have little to decide except the fact of the
time when the improvement was undertaken, the amount of
outlay, and number of years which has expired since the outlay
was commenced_ We propose that neither the landlord nor
the tenant shall be subject to any expense in going to this tri-
bunal, and the effect of this will be to secure an impartial and
unprejudiced arbitration. Can you expect to get a more im-
partial decision in any other way ? Can you obtain the same
advantage of impartiality by referring the question to a jury or
the revising barrister ? The public may complain of the ex-
pense thrown upon them, bat the mode of adjustment proposed
by the Government is the cheapest and the best that can be
devised for securing the interests of the landlord and the tenant.
But if you think, after due inquiry, that a reference to a jury
or an arbitration is more satisfactory, then in the name of God
adopt either of these proposals, but whichever you choose de-
fine the principles upon which the compensation shall be
awarded. I think it is hardly necessary for me to detain
your Lordships upon the importance of inducing landlords to
encourage and advise their tenants to lay out capital in the im-
provement of the land they occupy ; but I may here remark,
that while ail admit the policy and importance of taking steps
of this nature, you one and all oppose a practical measure
brought forward for securing compensation for the improve-
ments. The benefit and importance of the suggestions made
by the Commissioners are generally admitted ; but when a
practical measure is proposed for carrying them out you feel
called upon to oppose it. Well, then, I ask you, under these
circumstances, to go into Committee, and in doing so to bear
in mind the state of Ireland, apart from the state of England
and Scotland ; and I ask vou to bear in mind the inability of a
great portion of the landed proprietary of Ireland to contribute
towards the improvement of the land, and the great importance
of encouraging the tenant to make these improvements
by giving them that compensation in Ireland which custom
gives to the tenant in England. Do not let the people of
Ireland have cause to say the House of Lords is studious to
provide for the interests of their own body, but have no con-
sideration or regard for the interest of the occupiers of the
land. Many Acts of Parliament have been passed, which have
received the sanction of your Lordships, for enabling the
tenant for life who may be advanced in years to recover frem
his successor compensation for the money he may have laid out
in improving the property, and I ask your Lordships to compare
this with that of the landlord and tenant who has no lease,
and point out to me the difference between the two cases.
1 hat is all that we call upon the landlords of Ireland to do. Let
them take whatever precautions they like to secure that the
improvements shall be real ; but secure to the tenant of Ire-
land that he shall have the same remuneration which you have
secured to yourselves and to persons in your own position. In
making this proposition we have not taken the opinions of men
of any party, or of persons in anywise interested. We have
taken the opinion of men of the highest character and the
g.eatest experience—men separated from each other by party
and local interests—we should deserve the want of confidence
which our conduct would produce, and would be responsible for
the consequences.—( Hear, hear.) I do not call upon your
Lordships and Parliament to agree to this Bill at once in all
its details. But Ido say that if your Lordships reject the Bill
without sending it to a committee, without fully examining all
its details, we shall not be responsible for the consequences.
The Earl of ESSEX put a question to the Noble Lord re-
lating to the 10th clause.
Lord STANLEY said that it would be for the Committee
to report upon that clause as well as upon every other.
In answer to a question from the Earl of RODEN,
Lord STANLEY said that the Commissioners had not been
unanimous in the recommendation that the adpeal to the Go-
vernment Commissioners should be final.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY (amidst loud cries of
" Order, order,") read an extract from the report of the Com-
missioners, in which an appeal to the assistant barristers was
recommended.
Lord STANLEY briefly replied.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he could not agree
that this was not the introduction of a new principle. He
thought it was a new principle to compel the landlord to pay
for an expenditure of which he did not approve.—( Hear,
hear.) He regretted that the inquiry had been set on foot
with so much ostentation, for it had raised expectations amongst
a people well known to be too easily excited to hopes which
could not be realised by any measure, and which could only
suffer the most painful, and, he feared, the most disastrous dis-
appointment from the poor result of the inquiry in this Bill.—
( Hear, hear. ) His Noble Friend had intimated to the House
that he should be most desirous of passing this Bill if the com-
pulsory power should be thought fit by their Lordships that it
should be omitted in Committee. He wished to know if he
was wrong ?
Lord STA LEY said that his Noble Friend was entirely
wrong in that point. What he said was only that he did not
go so far as some of his Noble Friends, who thought that this
Bill would have no beneficial tendency if that compulsory power
was withdrawn from it. He thought that it was a great ad-
vantage. He did not conceive that the Government officer was
the principle of the Bill. He was ready to have any other ar-
bitration which would secure to the tenantry the same advan-
tages and security for compensation. 'With regard to the Go-
vernment officer and the Commissioners, they did not wish to
pledge themselves to their adoption, but leave it to discussion in
the Committee. He reserved also, on the part of her Majesty's
Government, the option of receiving the Bill at all, after these
alterations were made.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that it was the first
time his Noble Friend had mentioned the last sentence. The
two former he had repeated for the third time. He thought
that it would I,e advantageous to the honest tenants, but it
miglt be a weapon of endless vexation and torment in the
hands of a litigious and dishonest tenant. The system of
agreement was one which was fast gaining ground in Ireland,
arid which would prevail to a greater extent in some years
hence. It was the bounden duty of their Lordships to adopt
it for the purpose of giving the fullest effect to their plans.
Every tenant who wished to improve his land, should look to
his landlord in the first instance as to the means by which he
would effect his improvements. Well then, hearing from his
Noble Friend that he did attach importance to this Act, and
yet if he still stated that anything would accrue from this
Bill to the benefit of Ireland, after altering the objectionable
parts, he (Lord Lansdowne) was not prepared to oppose the
Hill going into Committee. He would say, before he sat down,
that he did look upon the Bill as one of great importance to
Ireland, and also of equal importance to England and Scot-
land, for though the position of the countries was not identical,
yet he would say the time might come when the same principle
might be recognised in a Bill of a like effect for those
countries.
The Earl of DEVON said he would occupy but a very few
words in explanation. The Noble Earl then read extracts
from the proposed Bill, showing the manner in which the
power of the Commissioner in Dublin was restricted in refer-
ence to the duty imposed upon him in the part he should take
as mediator between landlord and tenant.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY contended that the
Noble Earl who had just sat dow n had said nothing but what
the House knew already, merely reading an extract from the
report.--( Laughter, and cries of " Divide.")
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
Foethe Hill
34
For the amendment

Majority in favour of the Bill —l4
The House adjourned at a Quarter past Twelve.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 24.

The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'clock.
THE OXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOLVER.

HAMPTON RAILWAY.

Mr. BARINEBY moved the third reading of the Oxford,
Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway Bill.
Mr. GISBORNE believed that the double line of rail pro-
posed to be laid down by the Bill could not be adopted with
safety. Unless the clause which gave the power to make the
line was struck out, he should oppose the third reading of the
Bill.

Mr. SHAW defended the course pursued by the Committee.
Mr. GODSON remained of the same opinion he had for-
merly entertained with respect to this measure.
Mr. 0. STANLEY thought there ought to be some clause
introduced by which a certain maximum rate of charge
was established. At present the company would be at liberty
to make any charge they pleased. He believed that the report
was not the same as it was when it was laid on the table of the
House. He understood it had been altered in many essential
particulars by the chairman. He should therefore move that
the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
Mr. SHAW said that he had merely corrected the report
for the purpose of making it sense and grammar, but he had
altered it in no important particulars.
Colonel WOOD hoped the Hon. Member would not perse-
vere in his motion that the Bill be read that day six
months, after the House had expressed its opinion so strongly
in favour of the measure as it did the other night. If the
clause objected to by the Honourable Member opposite (Mr.
Gisborne), was struck out, the Midland Welsh Railway would
have no means of access at all. He believed that the Govern.
ment would have to interfere, and make a uniform gauge
all over the kingdom. He hoped when the Bill went into the
House of Lords a clause would be introduced to make the Com-
pany adopt a narrow gauge.
Mr. 0. STANLEY, seeing the feeling of the House, would
withdraw his motion that the Bill be read a third time that day
six months.

Lord HOWICK thought it would be of the greatest public
importance to establish a uniform gauge all over the kingdom.
He was aware that the change of gauges would be attended
with great expense, but he thought that experse might be
well incurred. He hoped Government would take the matter
into their own hands, because, if a change was to be made, the
sooner it was done the better.

Sr, GEORGE OLERK said the question to which the
Noble Lord referred was one of very great importance, and
certainly required the serious consideration of that House. He
thought that he had observed, when last this question was before
the House, that it would not be possible to expect
those parties who had laid down railways on a particular gauge
would be at the enormous expense of changing their line, and
changing their whole. stock of carriages and waggons, and
making an alteration m their tunnels, embankments, and cut-
tings. He thought it was most imp ,rtant to inquire whether there
was any inconvenience, and to what extent that inconvenience
would prevail in different gauges being established. He thought
this should be the first inquiry they should make. The Corn-
pittee upon this Bill had come to no decision with respect to

45

the geuge necessary to he adopted. They hd reported
merely as to the facility of transhipping goods.
An inquiry ought to be instituted as to the degree of danger
that would attend the establishment of railways on different
gauges, and whether there would be any incoovience to the
rublic generally by a diffcren e in the gauges. He was ex-
tremely happy thst tin? Noble Lord had raised this question,
and thought it of the utmost importance that it should be fully
comidered and di•cu sed.
Ali, BRIGHT wished to say, on behalf of his Hon. Friend
the Member for Stockport, that it was his lion. Friend's
intention to submit to the Home, as a di-tinct proposition, the
reso'ution which he had submitted on Friday night, as an
amendment to the motion for die reception of the report on
tine Bill.
Mr. BARNARD thought it was highly important that
this question of gauges should be settled. It appeared
to him that no surveyor or engineer had given his
opinion as to whether the gauge might not be placed
between the narrow gauge of 4 feet Eq- inches and the
broad gauge. This was a point well worthy of consideration.
He believed that some persons held the opinion that a gauge of
4 feet inches, Was too narrow, while the broad, or 7 feet
gauge, was too broad, and the point, therefore, which he
thought they had to consider was, what would be the best
gauge between those two limits.
Sir G. GREY thought it was rather extraordinary that
the Board of Trade had not come down to the House with a
clause to provide fur the establishment of the narrow gauge
upon this line. He thought this was the more extraordinary
after what had fallen from the Right Honourable Gentleman
opposite (Sir George Clerk) on Friday night. The Board of
Trade now recommended the promoters of this Bill to adopt
a clause compelling them to do an impossibility—an impossibi-
lity -- when the report of the Board of Trade upon this sub-
ject :was considered—for they now called upon them to lay
down the narrow gauge to the satisfaction of the Board
of Trade—the same Board of 'fiade having reported
that to lay down the narrow gauge,, under such circumstances,
would be impracticable. He must say that he thought the
Board of Trade had another duty to perform than coming
down to that House, and in plaintive tones endeavouring to
smooth down their own reports.
sir G. CLERK said that after the majority of Friday night, 1
and the decided expression of opinion given by the House, he
had not thought it necessary further to interfere.
After a few words from Mr. V. STUART, VS hich were quite 1
inaudible,
Mr. HODGSON HINDE suggested that the further pro-
ceedings on this Bill should be postponed, in order that clauses
might be introduced compelling the broad gauge company to
lay down the narrow gauge in addition to their own. ( fie
was met with loud cries of " No, no
Mr. COBDEN understood that the Right Honourable
Gentleman opposite had no objection to a commission being
issued on this subject, as it would be preferable to a Committee
of that House. lie (Mr. Cobden) would, therefore, frame
his motion upon the subject accordingly.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
Captain BERKELEY then presented a petition front the
inhabitants of Gloucester. The petitioners stated that they
had heard with alarm that the Great Western Company in-
tended to carry their line under the River Severn instead of
over it, and they therefore prayed the House to afford them
protection.—(Laughter.)
The London and South-Western (2) Railway was reported
to the House, and ordered to Le read a second time on Thursday.
OXFORD AND RUGBY RAILWAY.
On the order of the day for the third reading of the Oxford
and Rugby Railway Bill,
Sir CHARLES DOUGLAS moved that it be postponed,
as a great number of lines were at that time before Parliament,
which would be affected by the passing of this Bill. A de-
cision had been come to by the House the other evening,
and he thought that the reconsideration of the question might
be attended with considerable advantage, as he was well aware
that many Hon. Members had voted on the question without
having at all considered its merits. He considered that this
inquiry would be attended with advantage to all, and he should
therefore move the postponement of time Bill.
.Ir. P. BORTHWICK opposed the proposition of the Hon.
Gentleman, and contended that it was inconsistent and in-
expedient of the House not to sustain the decisions of the Com-
mittees, which were governed altogether by a regard for the
public interest, to which all merely local interests ought to give
way. He could not consent to follow the example of those
Hon. Members who supposed that they promoted the interests
of their constituents by opposing thegeneral interest of the public.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that no one more deeply re-
spected the decisions which the Members of those Committees
came to than himself; still he did not think the House should
always bend to them. Such decisions should not preclude
those who had local information from stating their
views to the House before the final adoption of
any railway scheme. He had no objection to every com-
pany doing its best to forward their particular plans ; still,
before the House agreed to any of them, he considered a full
opportunity should be afforded to Members of local experience
for laying that experience before the House. He should sup-
port the motion of his lion. Friend for the postponement of
the Bill.
Mr. COLLETT—.It appeared that the opinions of the
Committee were by no means unanimous, and it was also
evident from the evidence which had been adduced, that the
traffic of iron and minerals was much better served by the
narrow than by the broad gauge. He did not see that the
house would at all be interfering with the judgment of the Com-
mittee in reconsidering the motion which had been put be-
fore therm The intercourse with Brighton and Norwich was
carried on with the narrow gauge, and he wished that this
principle was carried out on all the railways in the kingdom.
Sir GEORGE GREY wished to say a few words on this
subject, and should not have been induced to utter them, but
that it was evident that the Committee were by no means una-
nimous in their decision. It appeared that the decision
of the Committee was the difference of two and
three ; and he thought, therefore, that it might be reviewed
without any interference or disrespect. All, or most of the
passengers who went by the Birmingham Railway, either pro-
ceeded to Birmingham or went on by the Midland Counties
Railway, and it was therefore manifest that Rugby would be
one of the very worst places at which the alteration from the
narrow to the broad gauge could be made.
Mr. SHAW did not think that the question was between the
relative merits of the narrow and broad gauge. The question was,
whether it was the London and Birmingham Company or the
Great Western Company who were to construct this line of rail.way. He was of opinion, if it was not made by the Great Western
Company, it would not be made at all. It would not pay the
other Company, and it would very little more than pay the
Great Western Company, but as it would draw the traffic to
their trunk line it would be their interest to make it. The
Committee thought it was their duty to grant this line. He
would not enter again into the broad and narrow gauge
question, which had been already fully discussed.
Mr. GISBORNE thought the Right Hon. Gentleman
was wrong in approving of the narrow gauges. Rugby was
the most inconvenient place in the kingdom to make a break
of guage ; besides the incenvenience to the passenger by this
break, it would greatly increase the expense of the convey-
ance of goods; and, in the case of coals, very much
damage their quality ; the question of delay should
be likewise taken into consideration. He considered
that this plan of transhipping coals would form a
complete bar to any traffic in that article.—( Loud cries of
" Divide, divide," and " Oh, oh,")—and so also of lime, and
he could speak from experience on the subject, having been
one of the largest lime burners in England.—(" Oh, divide.")
By giving this branch to Rugby, they would prevent lime
being carried beyond that town.—( Cries of " Order, order.")
With respect to the broad and narrow gauge, he was not much
in the habit of eulogising the reports of the Board of Trade,
but in this case he thought their reasons were
must cogent.—(Cries of " Divide, divide," " Order, order.")
The Hon. Gentleman at length gave way to the loud and re-
peated calls of " Divide," and concluded by supporting the
motion for postponing the Bill.
Mr. LOCKHART, who was also interrupted by calls fora
division, said that the Bill was brought in by two Members con-
nected with railways, against the expressed wishes of all the
inhabitants of the locality. He supported the amendment.
Mr. TANCRED, as Member for the most important bo-
rough on the line, hoped the House would hear a few words
from hint. He had presented a petition against the Bill from
the Mayor and 747 of the principal traders of Banbury.
Taking Banbury as the centre of the district through which
the proposed line of railway was to be taken, in a radius
.of ten
miles there were 70,000 of a population, who consumed
annually 60,000 tons of coals. With the narrow gauge line
they would be brought from South Staffordshire, but
if the present line were constructed they would
have to be supplied principally from Leicestershire,
at a much clearer rate than if they were supplied from the
former place, besides the great inconvenience that would arise
from the change of gauges. He did think, under all the cir-
cumstances, the motion for the postponement of the Bill ought
to be acceded to.
Lord VILLIERS briefly supported the third reading of the
Bill. He had been through that portion of time midland
counties where the line was to be constructed, and there had
been great rejoicing when the news was received respecting the
recent decision of the House on the Bill.
Mr. BRAMS TON said with regard to the gauges about
which so much had been said, the House should recollect that
the Board of Trade had power to enforce double lines of rails
on both the broad and narrow gauges, at any time whenever
they should think the traffic would require it. He would sup-
pert the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that they were told by one
Member that the question of the broad and narrow gauge had
nothing to do with the decision of tine Committee. On the
other hand, the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin
stated that it was precisely on that ground
that the Committee had come to their decision. That
Hon. Member, who was the Chairman of the Committee, had
asserted that if the Great Western project had not been
started, the line to Oxford and Rugby would:never have been
constructed. That was an assertion which as Chairman of that
Committee ought never to have been made, and was more in con-
sonance with the conduct of a partisan than of an impartial
judge. Opposed to this there was the declaration of the London
and Birmingham Directors, that they would apply the
whole of tkeir revenues to the formation of this
line, rather than that it should not be formed. In addition
to all this, they had the decision of the Board of Trade.
It appeared that on this Committee there were two
Scotchmen and two Irishmen. The two Scotchmen
voted one way and the two Irishmen the other, so
that it was the vote of the Hon. Member for Essex that had
decided the ease. Now he had a greater opinion of the Board
of Trade than he had of the opinion of the Hon. Member for
Essex (Mr. Darby ), and as this decision was in decided oppositionreviewed.
t
without any impropriety. The decision of
to the Board of Trade, he thought that it might be
Board
of
was in his mind entitled to respect, yet, notwithstanding
ea
he could not but come to the conclusion that
dispensedthat the Board
Boawrditho.f
Trade in this matter might be altogether
Looking at the opinion which had beenelp eased by the Hon.
Member for Essex, and at the reports of the Board of Trade,
he thought
the
ghtthßeiyil
until would
tteursnu?eatthaeesasaiofoer.
Mr. SHAW rose to explain. course if they were to
p
He had said, and he repeated
the interest of the London and Birmingham
that it was not to
it., that it had appeared to him, as a Member of the Committee,
Company to make a railway from Oxford to Rugby. He had
that was his opinion, but to
,say that he had been in-
sdauiedotehea t
d (Cries of " Order, order, " Spoke, spoke.") He
was aware that he must confine himself to explanation. He
had said, and he would repeat it, that the evidence which had
been brought before that Committee had satisfied his mind that
it was not for the interest of the London and Birmingham
Company to make that line..
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE explained.
Mr. L ABOUCHERE considered that it would be more
satisfactory if the Committee had been unanimous, but he
thought it would be a most dangerous precedent to discuss,
except under very particular circumstances, the decision of a
majority of a Committee in that House.—( Hear, hear.) He
should, by his vote, sustain the deeisirn of the majority of the
Committee. With regard to the report of the Board of Trade,
lie did not consider it worth a straw in opposition to the report
of the Committee.
Mr. MUNTZ thought it quite ridiculous that the House
should be frightened from its propriety by the statement of an
engineer, as to the cost. He had previously voted in favour of
the narrow gauge, not because he considered it better than the
other gauge, but because it had been more generally used.
Mr. HA YTER thought it a little hard that his Right Hon.
Friend should have expressed so vehement a determination
to obstruct the progress of the Bill. He complained of such
a proceeding. He did not wish to enter into any discussion at
present. In the Bill which he now held in his hand for the
Oxford and Rugby Railway, there was a clause to compel
the
proprietors of that line to best all the 811=10 of transhipping

~<,j,~ v
_ ~ c.?

in whatever case or to whatever extent it tb.;Rbt be necessary:
to adopt the
—( Hear, hear, and loud cries of "Divide, a, vide.") There
was ai.other clause which further compelled theta
narrow gauge if the Board of Trade should &nip):rove of the
gauge.—( The cries of " Divide, divide," wem renewed
with increased vehemence, and the Hon. Gentleman concluded
by supporting the Biil. )
The House then divided, when there appeared,
For the motion
Against it
Major v
The St. Helen's Canal Railway Bill was ordered to be re—
committed.
The Preston and 11'3re Railway Branches Bill was ordered
to be recommitted.
The Newry and Enniskillen Railway Bill was ordered to lie-
on the table.
UNIVERSITIES' TESTS ABOLITION (SCOTLAND)
BILL.
Mr. FOX INIAULE presented a petition from the General
Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, and from several
other parties in favour of the Bill for the abolition of tests is
the Universities of Scotland.

Mr. BOUVERIE presented a petition from Glasgow with
a similar prayer.

TEN HOURS' BILL.
Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from the West Riding
of Yorkshire in favour of the Ten Hours' Bill.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK presented two petitions to the same
effect.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Messengers from the House of Lords brought up several
Bills, which were ordered to be laid on the table.
SALE OF ARDENT SPIRITS IN IRELAND.
Mr. ROSS postponed his motion for the repeal of so much
of the Act 6 and 7 William IV., cap. 38, as prohibits grocers
in Ireland from selling ardent spit its.
DEODANDS BILL—ILLEGAL COMMITTAL IN THE
ISLE OF MAN.
This Bill was read a first and second time, and ordered to be
committed.
Mr. BOWRING rose to ask the Right Hon. Baronet the
Secretary of the Home Department three questions of which
he had given notice. They were—Whether John Walters Col-
dicett was committed, on or about the 9th of September last, to
Castle Rushen, in the Isle of Man, on a charge of assault,
without any examination or hearing before a magistrate ?
Whether, on complaining of the irregularity and hardship of
his commitment to the Lieutenant-Governor of the Island, the
case was referred by the said Lieutenant-Governor to the com-
mitting magistrate himself ? Whether the original committal
was not to corn; el the prisoner to keep the peace for six
months, and whether the six motths being passed, he was not,
and is not now detained in gaol ?
Sir J. GRAHAM thought that he mast be discreet in the
reply which he was about to give. The party of whom the
Hon. Member had spoken bad been committed on the 9th of
September. He had then been required to enter into his own
recognizances, and to find sureties of 401. each. This was
agreed to by the parties, but a detainer for debt was lodged
against him on the 16th of October. Even this had been set
aside, and he would have been ready to accede to the petition,
but he believed that the Hon. Gentleman was not aware of
the character of the person whose cause he had advocated. The
detainer for debt had been set aside, and another, and more
serious charge had been preferred. In the whole of these pro-
ceedings the utmost regularity had been observed, and he could
not ascertain that any defect had been permitted in complying
with the rules of the island. The character of the individual
was best develeped in the circumstance that the individual for
whom the Hon. Member pleaded had been convicted and im-
prisoned for two sears on a charge of attempting to commit a
rape on his own daughter.
Pr. BOWNING-1 hat was not a committal. which he
ought to recognise in his observations.
Sir J. GRAHAM was perfectly aware of that circumstance,
but still he must. affirm that, as the rules of the island had
not been violated, the charge could not be preferred.
RAILWAYS.
Mr. GISBORNE wished to ask the question, of which be
bad given notice, as to whether any new regulations had bee*
introduced into the House with respect to railway Bills.
Sir B. PEEL was not at the present moment prepared to
answer the question of the Hon. Gentleman to its full extent.
The Government had been occupied,for some time past in con-
sidering this subject, and he wished to have the benefit of expe-
rience with regard to the working of the railway system be-
fore they decided upon any plan whatever.
THE TARIFF.
Mr. LABOUCHERE wished to bring under the consi-
deration of the Government the fact that the Spanish Govern-
ment had endeavoured to have Spanish sugar introduced at
the same rate of duty as that on which the most favoured nation
iv. s introduced, He thought that there was a great necessity
that there should be some alteration in this respect. He did
not wish to enter into the old question ; but if it were inconve-
nient to the Government to lay the whole of the correspond-
ence on the table, or the decision at which they had arrived,
they might lay the decision without the correspondence, or
the correspondence without the decision.
Sir R. PEEL did not think that it would be either wise or
right to separate the decision from the correspondence. In
the course of a few days he would be able to lay the whole of
the correspondence on the table of the House, and then, if
necessary, the decision might be discussed.
OPIUM.
Mr. LABOUCHERE wished to ask another question, as
he saw the Vice-President of the Board of Trade in his place.
Was there to be any alteration in the duties on morphine?
He knew the difficulties which would arise from the alteration
of this duty. Morphine was a peculiar preparation, of which
opium was the raw material ; and he had heard, from an
eminent chemist, that the trade in this article was likely to be
altogether destroyed. The whole duty on the article was only
from 3,0001. to 4,000/. a-vear, and by its remission a great
benefit would be conferred upon the public, and no injury done
to the trade. He would, therefore, hope that that duty would
be remitted altogether.
Sir G. CLERK said that the duty was only Is. a lb., and
that it had been reduced some years ago. In 1842 the duty
was 16s. a lb., but in that year the duty was reduced to ss. a
lb., but yet there had been no reduction or increase in the
amount of the drug imported. Drugs of this nauseous and
unpleasant kind would not be admitted at the same rates
as those which were necessary for the comfort and enjoyment
of the people, and he should have been glad to propose a redue-
ti in of the daty if it had been for the welfare and interest of
the people.
Sir R. PEEL said that his Right Hon. Friend the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would, in the course of a few days,
lay on the table a modification of the tariff, and he trusted,
therefore, that the House would wait until they saw the altera-
tions there proposed.
The subject then dropped.
,inloloetheg
stieltdlrb,yHGL'rTeaTt
isiaridilatiln, t
shiencreoslestlo4
THE SLAVE TRADE.
tisluaptpthreesscioounrseof puthre-
slave trade, has been attended by large expenditure of the public
money, and by serious loss of life to the naval forces of the
country, and that it has net mitigated the horrors of the middle
passage, nor diminished the extent of the traffic in slaves." In
doing this, he could not but express his surprise that a subject
so important as this should so long have gone on uninvestigated.
It was known that since 1814 an immense sum had been ex-
pended in the attempts to abolish the slave trade. He was still
of opinion that the attempts to abolish this trade would
prove utterly futile. During the forty 3ears in which the
attempt had been followed up, there had been an
energetic attempt to put down the slave trade, and he meat
bear his testimony to the zeal and energy with which that
attempt had been prosecuted on the part of the Admiralty.
There had been an immense expenditure, both in the army
and navy, and he must say that nothing more important could
be brought under the consideratiou of Parliament. Foreigners
looked with a great distrust upon the attempts of this country
to liberate the slaves. Since 1614 the attempt had been in-
creasing, and every Government had used its utmost endeavour
to carry this out with varying suecess, but certainly with un-
tiring perseverance. For nearly thirty years this country had
busied itself in nothing more than in efforts to put down
the slave trade. Fleets employed to guard the coastse—diplo-
matic energy unparalleled employed to put down the slave
trade. Well, of course we had succeeded. We had put down
the slave trade. We had done no such thing—we had cam.;
pletely failed, and we had only attained this, that our failure
had been attended with the most frightful increase of the evils
which we sought to suppress. Such was the opinion of all the
most, sincere and ardent enemies of slavery. It was the opinion
of Sir Fowell Buxton, of Dr. Lushington, and Lord John
Russell, and of the venerable Mr. Clarkson.—( Hear, hear. )
To show the opinion of Sir F. Buxton, he read very long ex-
tracts from that deceased gentleman's pamphlet, to show that
the measures which we had taken for the suppression of the
slave trade had only served to stimulate the dreadful traffic,
and to increase its horrots. The slave trade never could be
put down until slavery itself was abolished.—( Hear, hear.)
These opinions were echoed by the Anti-Slavery Society, and
by every benevolent man who took part in attempting to put
down slavery. Such was the opinion also of the Marquis of
Lansdowne. Such, also, was the opinion of the Marquis of
Normanby, who had proved himself, as Secretary for the Colo-•
nies, one of the most able and beneficent Ministers to
whom the colonies had ever been entrusted. The Hon. Gen-
tleman then. read an extract trom a dispatch from the Noble
Marquis, expressing regret at the total failure of the measures
taken to put down the slave trade. ( The reading of the ex-
tract was much cheered.) The next witness he would refer to
was the Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) who, in a
speech at Exeter Hall (from which the Hon. Gentleman quoted
largely), declared that at the time when he was addressing the
I meeting, the horrors of the slave trade were greater than at any
former period.—( Hear.) His next witness was Lord Aber-
deen, from whose dispatches he read similar extracts, in which
the Noble Lord complained bitterly of the bad faith of the
Spanish and Portuguese governments, in conniving at the ter-
rible aggravation of the slave trade.—( Hear, hear.) He then
read extracts from a pamphlet published by Mr. Clarkson,
in which that venerable author stated that the attempt to
suppress the slave trade by force had completely failed,
and had led to a tremendous sacrifice of life. He would
not detain the House longer than was absolutely necessary to
put
it in possession of the facts upon which his motion rested.
The fact was that so greatly had the evil been increased, that
whereas at the end of the last century, the amount of Africans
carried
off to America as slaves was but 90,000, the number in
1843 was 200,00. From the Bight of Benim alone 150,000
were carried away. [The Hon. Gentleman then went into ex-
tended numerical statements, but so rapidly read, that they
could not be made intelligible, as we caught them, without the
aid of the documents. ] 192,000 slaves were now annually ire.
ported into Coba and Brazil. Could it be doubted then
that taking the whole of America into account, the
number imported from Africa was at least 200,000,
But it might be said that since these returns were received
the citizens of the United States had taken less part in
driving the trade for the supply of other countries, that
greater precautions had been token, and that fresh treaties had
been entered into. But he would call the attention of the
House to the report of the Commissioners of Sierra Leone,
who stated that there had been a great increase in the trade
and a great aggravation of its horrors. He wished to bring
these facts before the common sense of the House. If they
were to be decided by argumentative disputation he well knew
his incapacity to meet the Hon. Gentleman opposite. He
thought that he had stated to the House sufficient facts to cause
an agreement to that part of the resolution which he referred
to. He had another charge to make against the means which
were adopted
to suppress the slave-trade : the system pursued
in order to put it down caused a great many evils. He be-
lieved that the intelligent people of Cuba and-Brazil looked at
the large disproportion that now existed between the
numbers of blacks and whites with the utmost alarm. That was
the prevailing feeling amongst the intelligent people of those
countries. The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read part
of a dispatch sent to Lord Aberdeen, stating the consternation
that existed. It contained the most vehement denunciations
of the means adopted to suppress the slave trade. He was not
astonished at the hostility which was exhibited to that system
when it was enough to enlist vast prejudices against it. It was
not surprlsin ••g that we excited a disposition to oppose us. He
population
should like to know what would be the feeling of the.
of this country if they were in the habit of hearing that. any.
by a foreign chip
of from any port in this island was chased p
vessel
of war, either Dutch or American, and had been destroyed be-
cause
it was engaged in smuggling, because
the American or
Dutch Government wished to put smuggling down. He be-
lieved that every person acquainted with the subject was cone
vinced that the means resorted to to put down the slave trade
were totally p Inoerative.
• ' Though they heard of the number of
Africans taken away by the slave ships, though their consuls
and agents were able to furnish them with those accounts, yet
they had no account of the number that were massacred in the
course of the proceedings, and no account of those who perished
in the berracoolie while waiting' for capitation. There