Star.
London, England, 1830-11-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Nov. 11.
Their Lordships met at five o'clock.
Petitions were presented praying for the abolition of negro slavery, by
dm Earl of Carlisk, from Cumberland ; by the Duke of Rutland, from
several places in Rutlandshire ; by Lord Limerick, from the county and
city of Limerick; by the Archbishop of Canterbury, from Canterbury
and other places ; by Lord Bexley, from Ease: ; by the Bishop of Lon.
don, from several parishes in London; by Lord Arden, Lord Cawdor,
Lord Morley, the Bishop of Gloucester, Lord Grosvenor, Lord Wham.
life; and sixty-one petitions by the Marquis of Lansdowne to the
same effect.

The LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move that the Order of the
Day be discharged for the introduction of the Regency Bill, and that
their Lordships should be summoned for Monday neat, to take that
subject into consideration.—Agreed to.

Till LORD MAYOR*/ DINNER.

Lord RADNOR rose to inquire of his majesty's ministers whether
they could adduce any better grounds for having advised his Majesty
not to attend the Lord Mayor's Festival on the 9th, than the letter writ.
ten by the Lord Mayor Elect ? Ministers ought to have instituted an
inquiry whether there were any grounds for that letter. It seemed by
it that the Lord Mayor only apprehended danger out of the city of
London. It would appear from what he (Lord Radnor) bad learned,
that when the letter was sent off to the Lord Mayor, the ministers had
not much confidence in his lordship's communication, for the person
who was instructed to deliver Mr. Peel's letter to the Lord Mayor, was
to ascertain previously if the letter addressed to the Duke of Wellington
waa a hoax or not ? (hmr hear.) It was inconceivable how the Go.'
moment could so have betrayed his Majesty in giving such advice,
without having previously ascertained its foundation, and whether it
was gentile* ; but the noble duke stated on a former evening, when the
subject was alluded to, that be (the Duke of Wellington) had other
grounds and sources of information, which induced the Government to
advise hie Majesty not to attend the festival. Hs concluded bye:mess-
ing& wish that his Grace would lay before their lordships all the infer.
madam that governed hisn=ris ministers in their most injudicious
decision, which he (Lord considered a great calamity. (Hear.)
The Drab of WELLINGTO said that be was sorry that the noble
lord esasthamd that a great calamity which was contrary to the opinion
of the mojeilty of the other house of parliament, die beam of lords,
and the people. Tbc letter alluded to by the noble lord was laid before
his thejneyZutd received his Majesty's sanction. The noble lord in.
gaited wee tb lord mayor's letter the only ego received upon the sub.
jet*? He replied that he bad received several other communk:adeos, but
did not Math any 6nportaaes to these, until he received the one from
the lied mayor, which he laid before his colleagues, whim his right
bee. Aimed the secretary of state for the home department had a con-
home with the lord mayor upon that letter. The secretary of
stele received further information upon that subject. The infor.
NNW the government had was suthcient to justify them in advising
his Majesty not to attend the dinner (bear, hear.) As to instrue.
done fiber to the bearer of the letter, to mos:tale it the bed mayor's
Isom was genuine, after the secretary of state having a
moderence with the Lord Mayor, it was felt that it was important to
asserndo whether it was his writing, and his answer was, 1, That the
whole of it was his." The noble duke continued, that be did not enter-
tain the least doubt but bloodshed would have been the result, if his
Majesty had attended the festival. The Lord Mayor clearly and dim.
tincdy stated that the civic force would be insufficient to preserve the
peace. What was the inference ? That the military would be required
to preserve order, notwithstanding the 40,000 spe ial constables men.
tinned the other night by the noble lord, as prepared to preserve order.
What was the condition of the city on Tuesda night ? He advised his
Majesty under the apprehension of bloodshed. He felt justified, and
gloried in it. He refused to submit the information to their lordship's
inspection. (Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of CLA NRIC IRDE deprecated the advice given to
his Majesty. It was the unpopularity of the Duke that rendered danger
likely.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE highly approved of what government had
done ; they were justified in not running the risk of a riot. (Cheers.)

TEE NEW POLICE.
Lord DURHAM intimated that be would, on Monday, present a
petition upon the state of the New Police.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a petition from the
coal-mine proprietors of Newestle.on-Tyne, and one from the coal.
mine proprietors of the county of Durham, praying legislative relief.
Lord TTEYNHAM supported the petitions.
The Earl of WINCH ILSEA said that he trusted he should be sup.
pated in the Bill he was about to lay upon their Lordships' table.
It was a question of great Importance, that of the administration of the
Poor Laws. To the abuse of those laws the condition of the poor
was mainly attributable. If the abuse was not speedily checked, it
would still further tend to deteriorate the condidoo of the peasantry.
His object in introducing thi. subject to their Lordship's consideration
was, to restore and confine the operation of the poor laws to that class
which they were originally intended for. Secondly, for the purpose of
Cage employment to the labouring classes, to enable them to obtain an
existea. Thirdly, that they'sbould be relieved out of another
fund. The 43d of Elisabeth was intended to grant relief only to aged
widows and orphans, and never contemplated that the healthy 11-
bouring man should benefit by it. (Hear, hear, bear.) The abuse
lof those laws had tended more to the derno:disation of the poor than
any other cause. The system of paying wages out of the poor-rates '
was a principle that called loudly for legislative interference. He had
conversed with several of the peasants in his part of the country, and
they all expressed a desire to obtain honest employment. One of the
objects of the bill was, to enable the justices of the peace to make
an assessment for the support of the Labouring classes; that the as.
seamen*. should be made between from May to November, and that
in October a return should be made to those labourers who were de-
pending on their labour, and likely to require aid. He intended, by
a provision in the bill, that those farmers who paid a certain sum
to labourites should be relieved from the assessment altogether. He
moved the first reading of the bilL
Lord SUFFIELD did not think the bill before the house was likely
to remedy the evils so generally and so justly complained of. He ad-
mitted that the poor laws had a most demoralizing effect. He attributed
the road =Widen of the peasantry to a superabundance of labourers
over the demand of labour. Ile regretted that the Duke of Richmond's
motion for an inquiry into the state of the poor laws was not entertained
last lesion. He considered it the duty of government to Institute as
immediate measure far the employment of the poor.—(Hear, hear.)
There were millions of acres of unmelaimed land in England that might
be rendered available, if a fractional part of the poor.rates were applied
to that purpose, and would ultimately lasso the poor-rates, and tend to
introduce habits of industry. In his county the principle was generally
adopted, of letting the peasantry have a small portion of ground ; and
what was the result ? that for the last 31 years the poor-rates had only in.
creased fourpenee, the rates at that period being 2s. 3d. and only 2a. 7d.
at present. He would recommend that a committee should be ap-
pointed to take the entire question into consideration.
The Marquis of SALISBURY expressed his determination to move
the appointment of a committee to inquire into the state and operation
of the poor laws. His lordship named next Monday week for that
purpose.
Lord TEYNH AM said, he understood the question of the poor laws
as well as any man, and attributed the distress of the peasantry to the
operation of Inance. The tax on malt and hops tended to curtail the
comforts of the peasantry more than the operation of the poor laws. He
condemned the principle of the bill before their lotdships, as adadated
to inflict an additional tax upon the landlords; it was cruel that the land
should be brought to such a state. He concluded by stating that farmers
in Kent and Sussex had come to the determination), through intimida.
deo, to grant the labourers in those comities lbs. a week.
The fluke of RICHMOND said that the noble lord who had just
I sat down, was not justified in the statement he had made respecting

the farmers of Rent and Sussex. lie denied that they were influ-
enced by intimidation ; they may have increased the wages of the
labourers, but that act should hare been attributed to humanity.
The ministers knew nothing of the condition of the peasantry; they
resided in London and Brighton, and did not possess large estates
in the country, to enable them to form an opinion of the distress
that prevailed throughout the agricultural classes. Be hoped that a
committee would he appointed to inquire into the state of the poor
laws, and that a remedy would be devised. lie considered that the
duty on hops was not injurious to the peasantry. The removal of
the malt tax would increase the consumption.
Lord TEVNHAIId said that he had a letter to bear out his as.
senion.

Lord STOURTON said, he did not attribute the distress of this
country to a superabundance of labourers in this country, but to a su-
perabundance of unemployed labourers in Ireland, and recommended
that the state of the Irish peasantry should be inquired into. It was
impossible to believe that happiness and comfort could exist on one side
of the Channel, and poverty' and wretchedness on the other (cheers).—
He recommended the introduction of a moderate system of poor laws
into Ireland fur the aged. Government ought by all means possible,
to force employment into Ireland ; the Government were bound to do
so ; a considerable portion of Irish capital was expended in this coun-
try and subject to taxation, and in return government should lose no
opportunity to promote the improvement of Ireland. He teem-
mentied that the waste lands should be reclaimed, and the people colo-
nized upon it (hear). He regretted that the great question of eman-
cipation had not restored quiet to Ireland. One of the causes of
the disinclination on the part of capitalists to embark their wealth in
Ireland, was the constant state of agitation the country was in.
(Hear, hear.) The good sense of the Irish he trusted would soon
convince them of the injury that arose to their country from the
agitation of a question, he meant the repeal of the Union, which
was impossible could ever be repealed. He concluded by stating!
that one of the great causes of the distress in this country was the,
condition of Ireland. (Hear.)
Lord CARBERRY deprecated the agitation in Ireland. If a re.i
peal of the Union was granted, a separation would follow. If the
country was quiet, capital would be embarked in various speculatioos,
which would soon raise it front its present distressed state.
Lord GORT disapproved of the agitation in Ireland, and would resist
every eillwt made to effect a repeal of the Union.
Earl W INCH I IsS EA said that the principle of his bill only extended
to those districts where unemployed labourers wire obliged to throw
themselves-upon the poor-rates. He denied that the yeomen of Kent
were induced to raise the wages of the labourers through intimidation.
The bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be printed ; and
to be read a second time on Tuesday week.
The Duke of WELLINGTON was not inattentive to the question
before the house, the administration of the poor laws, which was so va-
rious throughout the country. It was out of the power of Government
to fix a remedy for all the evils. The Government were willing to give
any assistance to find out a remedy for the evils complained of, and to
enforce that remedy when adopted.
The Duke of RICHMOND expressed the satisfaction he experienced
at finding by the feeling of the house, that his motion last session was
not a factious one, butithat a necessity existed to inquire into the state
of the poor laws.
The Marquis of SALISBURY said that he was informed that day.
by a member of the administration, that the noble duke's motion last
session, for an inquiry into the poor laws, would have been entertained,
only that it was coupled with another question.
The Duke of RICHMOND—Then government ought to have
moved an amendment on the occasion.

The house adjourned at Eight o'clock till to.niorrow,

HOUSE OF CONIItIONS, Nov. 11.
Petitions in favour of the abolition of slavery were presented from the
protestant dissenters of Durham;7o from different places inStafford, Buck.
Ingham; several places in Suffolk, Penrhyn, and Derby ; 145 tram differ.
ent congregations of Wesleyan methodists; Melbourne; Southampton;
Jersey; Northumberland; Newcastle.upon-Tyne ; Dissenters of De-
vonshire ; Kiddington ; Kingston-upon-Hull; a Baptist Congtegstion
in Lancashire; 255 from different places in Yorkshire; Wareham;
Presto.; certain towns in Cumberland; Kingslatul, Middlesex; 23
from Essex; and fit= Limerick.

Mr. H. DAVIS presented a petition from the inhabitants of a parish
in Bristol. fora repeal of the House Duties.
Mr. SYKES presented a Petition from the merchants, ship
owners, end inhabitants of Kingston.upon-Hull, fur a repeal ofl
the duties on sea-borne coals.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL gave notice that he would on an
early day after Christmas, move for leave to bring in a Bill for the bet-
rer regulation of the gs in the Court of Chancery.
Sir R. BATESON mien &Petition from the inhabitants of Bally-
earth. in the county of Down, in Ireland, praying that mesas might
be afforded them to emigrate to Upper Canada, in America.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that It was a strange state of things to find
men who professed loyalty and obedience to the laws, compelled thus to
solicit voluntary banishment. He thought that some other means than
voluntary transportation ought to be adopted, to relieve the distresses
of the petitioners.
Sir R. BATESON explained that the petitioners were persons be-
longing to a trade which had declined in Ireland. They were cot-
ton.spinners, and thought they could do better in Canada than in their
own count.
Mr. LITTLETON Acted his motion on the labourers' wages
bill, or truck system, until the 24 of December.
Mr. O'CONNELL promoted a 'petition from a person named John
Machin, residing at Dundalk, Ireland, complaining that, instead of his
vote having been received at the election, it was rejected, and the peti-
timer assaulted. The petition therefore prayed some alteration in
the law relating to voting. Ordered to be brought up. The hon. and
learned gentleman also presented a petition from the operative hatters of
Carlow, for a dissolution of the legislative union between England and
Ireland t and from persons residing in London to the same effect.
On Lord MORPETH presenting petitions on slavery,
Mr. K. DOUGLAS observed that it was most important that hon.
gentlemen who piled the table of that house with petitions, should take
are that these petitions were properly got up, and that they came from
Friona who were capable of judging of the subject fairly and rationally.
The slavery question was of great importance, and care should therefore
be taken, as well on account of those who held property in slaves, as on
account of the slaves themselves, that no prejudice should arise to the
discussion of it from petitions got up by thoughtlesspersons, and signed
indiscriminately.
Lord MORPETH said that the people of Yorkshire, from whom the
petitions which he had had the honour of presenting came, were persons
of great intelligence, and who could not be at all affected by the obser-
vation of the hon. gentleman.
Mr. SYKES thought the remarks of the hon. gentleman perfectly
uncalled for, and ungenerous. The abolition of slavery was and out
for by every friend of humanity.
Mr.BETH EL presented a petition from a congregation of Protestant
Dissenters, at High Wkkham, and other places in Yorkshire, for the
abolition of slavery.
Mr. WILES prevented a petition from the minister and laymen of
the county of Dorset Association, for the extension of itligious liberty
to the Jews

Mr. R. GRANT intimated that he purposed bringing that question
forward after the recess.

Mr. BERNAI. moved for a return of the claims of British subjects
on France Agreed to.
Mr. HODGES presented a petition from the mayor, commonalty,
and inhabitants of Tenderden, praying for an inquiry into the agricul-
tural distress of the country, and also for a reform in the system of elect-
big members to serve in parliament.
Mr. DENISON presented a petition from the inhabitants of St.
' Mary's, Newington, prsying to be relieved from the expense attending
the new police system. The hon. member said that he did nut concur
in the prayer of the petition, although be presented it, fur, as far as he
had observed the new police system, it seemed to work well.—(Cheers.)
Ordered to lie on the table.

.....,....
li►. KENNEDY gave notice of a motion for a reform in the law of
election in Scotland, on limitlay next.
IS. HUM K presented a lonition from Lana►k, for a reform of Pat.
Ramat.

Lord BELGRAVR begged leave to cull the attention of the house
to the name clan excellent prelate. He alluded to the venerable Bishop
of Chester, from whom he had that morning received a letter on the
subject of a request, which he (the Bishop of Chester) had to make of
that bowie. But, in order to save the time of the house, he would read
the passage of the rev. prelate's letter, to which he alluded. The noble
lord then read as follows :—" I will esteem it a very great favour it you
will state to the house to.mortow.night, thAt it is sty earnest re•locet
that honourable members will be pleased to suspend their judg.
mints on the question respecting me, about to be brought forward,
until I shall have had an opportunity of preparing a statement on the
subject, which, I assure them, will prove most satisfavory. I also
earnestly hope that the ex parts statements and allegations which ap-
peared in the newstwpers, and which I could nut have answered, will
not bias their minds, or raise any unfair prejudice against rte." Har-
ing read the venerable prelate's request, he (Lord Belgrave) had per.
formed his duty to that right reverend friend : sod, therefote, the only
observation that remained for hint to make was, that he would reserve
what he bed got to say for a future period, when he would speak his
sentiments boldly and independently (hear).

ISCII•LETTING ACT (trizt.awb.)
Mr. O'CONNELL rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to repeal
the Statute of the 7th Oto. 4, c. lU, commonly called the Sub-letting
Act. He said that be had been induced to move for the repeal of this
statute, thinking that it was better sad more convenient to make en ori-
ginal act than to patch up an old oat. The Sub-letting Act was pees.
liar to Ireland ; it had no force in England ; and he contended that
then should be a case made out to show why the law of landlord and te-
nant should not be the more in both countries. The statute divided
itself into two objects, and therefore it might be considered as, in
fact, two statutes. The fret part took up all existing contracts
and lasses; the second part referted to contracts and leases
hereafter to be made. The tint altered the Nature of the contract be-
tween landlord and tenant, by giving a literal weaning to words which

I had only a legal meaning before. And this, he maintunted was unjust;
! because it in fact made this part of the statute an r.t.portVado law.
It struck out a qualification which was of advanuye to the tenant and
the contrary to the landlord—which was a boon conferred upon the poor
rand exacted a kindness from the rich—according to the ancient covenants
a:parole waiver was allowed. For although a covenant might be made that
the land should not be let to undertenants, yet, if the tenant did so sublet
and the landlord knowing this received one year's rent, the contract
thence-forth ceased to be binding. Touching the principle of the fire: part,
he contended it was a violation of contract, and he trusted there was nu
man in that house would rise to defend it. The second part, he admit-
, ted, was purely prospective, and therefore a legitimate topic fqf kgisla-
tion. It; after the passing of it, men entered into contrac.6, they did
so with their eyes open, and they could blame the legislature for entrap-
ping them. This second part, however, operated universally against::
sub-letting of the lands of Ireland, with thtee excepted cases ; that o:
a lease of lives renewable for ever, of a lease tor ninety nine years u'
upwards ; and thirdly, of all lands in the possession of the Clutch.
which, by the way, were very extensive in Ireland ; and be afterward s
,remarked. that he never knew a Church of any creed or shade
of doctrine that was not very attentive to its temporal
affairs. (Hear, hear, lieu, and much laughter.) lie asked why
the law should interfere betwen landlord and tenant, esitecially whet:,
before the passing of this act, the landlord could in two norms prevent
his tenant from under.letting. The one he had already mentioned, lit
which a parole waiver was admitted; the other was to be made effectual
by a strict wording of the contract. The result of this act, therefore,
was to take away from Ireland all freedom in the only trade it bad—
namely, a trade in land. It certainly did not do this in words, but it
did it in fact ; for it prevented the landlord from distraining tile under tee
nant, or, in other words, the occupier of the land. Thus it destroyed all
freedom in the landlord, for no man would consent to give up his right
of distress, which was the only mode the landlord had of reco.
vering, since the middle tenant had no power of recovering from
the occupier of the land. The question was, ought tile legislatnre to
interfere to prevent the existence of under.tenants in Ireland? lie thought
I not ; it was a prevalent opinion that it would be well for landlords to
clear their lands of under-tenants, and he was aware that it was stated
page after page in the ciedence of heartless sad interested men, that it
was advantageous to have fewer human beings and a greater quantity of
provisions upon the land. Neither %as he disputing the landlord's right to
get rid of his undsr.tenants ; he had a right to do so ; and the absentee
landlord, in whom interest would always -be ready to smother humanity,
might perhaps continue to exercise that right. But the government
should not compel a landlord to do so. Ii a man chose to exterminate
his peasantry, he should do it in his own name, and not be able to
shield himself with the commands of government. He was free to
confess that this was not a government act ; it was introduced in a vile
party left handed way, and he trusted that now there would be no op.
position to its repeal. In the legislation upon this subject since the
Union two evils had been inflicted on Ireland. The first was by the
act which then for the first time enabled landlords to distrain the growing
crops of their tenants ; and the second, that which afforded to the land.
lord a cheap and expeditious mode of ejecting his tenant. These two
measures he might describe as measures by which a landlord could first
ruin his tenant, and then turn him out cheaply. He knew that
there were sonic ;serums who imagined that the Subletting Act
was beneficial to the poor, and it should be his endeavour to
show these persona that they were mistaken. It might be said that
the effect of that Act was to create large farms, and so the Act
was passed by the political economists (for it was not a mere Government
measure) to establish a principle, no matter, as it seemed to him, at
what expense of misery to the poor. The consegtiences bad already
been dreadful. The number of poor persons who had been corn.
;wiled to resort to the filendicity Society of Dublin for support was
so great, that that Society was nearly ruined ; and hail it not been
for the individual kindness of the Governor of Ireland (he meant the
Duke of Northumberland), who, out of his own pocket. assisted it with
the sum of 1,0001. and had it not been her the equal generosity of a
lady of the same family, who should be nameless, it would have been,
ere now, completely broken up. Such generosity did both parties
the highest credit; but he feared that the effects of such acts as
that now under discussion would be too widely extended to be met by
such means. The object of this Act was to create large farms ; but in
order to do that, the people must first be got rid of—tor one effect of
this Act was to prevent any man occupying more land than he could
himself cultivate (unless he was fortunate enough to be a tenant of
Church Lands,) since he was not allowed the libesay of dividing it
with another tenant. Indeed if any such occupier of land (not Church
Land) was to give the labourers under him a holding on the land,
they might retain possession without paying him any rent for it.—
The consequence of these measures would be, that first the tenant
might be ruined by a distraint on his growing crops ; next,
that he might be turned out of poatst by a cheap and expeditious
mode of ejectment, framed for the benefit of the landlord ; and lastly,
when he was in this destitute condition, he had no hope of again getting
into possession of a farm—for a landlord would hardly be likely to re-
ceive him, and a tenant could not, and ought not, to be expected to
make him an under-tenant ; subjecting himself, as he would do, to all
the inconveniences Imposed en such a proceeding by the provisions of
this statute. Under these circumstances, he assured the house that he
felt convinced a remedy was absolutely necessary for the evils this act
bad occasioned; and, unless that remedy was afforded, he apprehended
nothing less than a servile war. He concluded by moving fur leave to
bring in a bill to repeal the sub.letting act.

Mr. DOHERTY remarked to the allusion regarding personalities
that had fallen from the hon. member, and if they were meant to apply
to him (Mr. Doherty) he would say that it had never been his desire to
be personal, and if the remark was suggested by what had passed on a
previous occasion between him and the hon. gentleman, he ( Mr. Do.
betty) had been led into it to repel unfounded attacks that had been
made upon himself. Ile thought that the hon. gentleman had taken an
injudicious measure, and one that would occasion a great deal of unne.
cessary trouble. The right hon. secretary for Ireland had prepared a
bill to amend the subletting act. That bill was fully framed, and it
would have been much better had he awaited the introduction of that
bill, instead of coming forward with suggestions on the subject. The
hon. member had made a misstatement when he said that the tenant
had no means of distraining on his under-tenant, for if the under.
tenant kept vexatious possession, his person could be distrained upon
for the expenses. It had been the opinion of every yerson of experience,
that the excess of the sub-division of the land in Ireland had led to
much misery. The honourable gentleman had said that he did not
value evidence taken on such a question, because the interrogations were
all couched in leading questions, and brought out the answers con•
forming to the desired intention. In 1824 and 1825 two committees
sat to inquire into die state of Ireland, preparatory to the formation of
this bill ; and on the 25th of February, 11,25, the honourable member
fur Waterford had himself given evidence, in which he gave a most
unqualified picture of the wretchedness and aisiress of the peoee,
in their food clothing and habitations. (The honourable etem-
ber here read a lung extract from the evidence of Mr. OTottnell.)
He (Mr. Doherty) denied the ex post facto opetation of the statute as
alleged by the lion member. The only object of the legislature was to
deal with the agricultural interest of Ireland. and rot with the tenantry.
The law was the same in Scotland, a country ranted for its agriculture,
and the law was there approved of, it did not prohibit landlords front
subletting, but it made it imperative that such permission should be ac.
kuowkdged in writing, that it might not be effected by any means of
which lie at the time he gave up his right might be unconscious of the
consequences. The experience of this country and the experience
of Ireland was sufficient to show the advantages of the 1aw....
One of the greatest evils that Ireland suffered was the repeti.
don of distress running from tenant to tenant, perhaps three
were six or seven (or more) individuals concerned between the
landlord and the tenant in possession, who, in rotation, all h:Itl
claims on one another. He (Mr. Dohetty) would forego every other
consideration. coal be accomplish any measure that would alleviate the
evils that afflicted Ireland ; and he hoped that now. when distracting
questions did not exist, by the cu.eperation of parties, mem: tneasttre
for relief might be accomplished. He would obserte, however.
that with regard to the qurtition or the introduction of the poor
laws, gentlemen ought to weigh well the matter before they sanc-
tioned their adoption. If the subletting act was asserted to be the
cause of the distress, the tuotrtion must be limn Ireland—Mr the
effect had preceded the cause. The endorse of the honourable !mother
woidt had just been read, was given in 1825, and the Subletting
act had not come into force till 11i21i. Mr. Doherty quoted the tp oieto
of Dr. Doyle as being favourable to his opinion of the notoine. But
the landlords of Ireland could alone mend the state of Ittlard : like
she man whose waggtm had stuck in the mud and who prayed t t 11cr.
cults fur assistance; the god told him to put his shoulder folio. wheel :
hr (lid so—and the waggon Wilai soon extricated. The hotelletels bate
now begun to put their shoulders to the wheel : they were becoming
ashamed by the voice of ptililse opinion, and they would sent', have a
yeomanry that would vie with any other country in tic world. Mr. Do.
bevy concluded with an earnest appeal to Mr. O'Connell to re.iitt,ider
his motion.

Air. V. STEIVA HT eipttanctl his surmise that the hnn. mummer for
Wm erirod should have any objections to the act. as it was f4%oittable
both to landlord and tenant.

Col. BERESFORD, after some observations in favour of the Sub.
letting Act, pmceeded to NUM, that a stigma of inhumanity had been
cast on a noble relation of his by the hon. mtmhcr tor 'traterford.
dlr. O'CONNELL.—Ii the bon. gentleman will afford me an oppor.
tunity of an explanation out of titiq house t and if he is not satisfied
with that explanation. not only shall I consent to his stating to the
bowie the expressions I may have used, but I shall be prepared to
retract them.

Cul. IiEItESFORD. however. proceeded to read an extract of a
newspaper, in which Mr. O'Cunuell was made to my, at a public meet.
ing in 'Maori, that Lord Beresford turned the poet people out of their
tenements, converting their holding. into pastures he fear-footed AM.
male, and exported the produse of Ireland into Me for his benefit.
Now he (CciL Ileresfored) was authorised by Lord ftessised to give to
this mutation the most Muddied denial Lewd B i let the lands
to his tenants, with the pewee at cultivating that laity phased, anti
if they turned them into pastors, it was bemuse del head *sit, own
mit in so &deg.
314 A. DA WSON said, he could not see hew the combs the land
with twenty houses could &whew the wit Vit was an evi

1

• i,
i-.

II

i

i

:1 e • • .• •
;4'..Yr Nit .
kst.'.4- •
be by a covenant. What necessity existed to justify
4. I' ' a • Abe contracts between the landlord and the tenant ?
P(oof • • • that in the subdivided farms there existed great dis-
`bells I -bqk •
..the wretchedness would not have been greater bu t
for thit • ' on. After some further observations, the lion member
contended eltat.the subletting act dissimilated the laws of the two coun-
tries : that, indeed, it only affected one-half of the lands in Ireland, and
was, therefore, a partial law. Besides, he asked, what was to become of
the population which it sent on t of those lands ?
The SO CI TOR-0 NERA I. contended that the law dispossessed
none of those in possession of property at the time of its passing. The
legislature, whom the member for Waterford had accused of precluding
the landlord from consenting to the tenant's subletting, by preventing
lii'n from distraining, had. he contended, conferred the greatest boon on
the tenantry, by taking away from the landlord the power of distraining
on a tenant who had paid his rent to his immediate landlord. The land-
lord could, however, give notice of the non-payment to the sub-tenant,
who would no longer pay the rent to the middleman.
Mr. GRATTAN said the Solicitor-General had termed the act a
boon to the pcas'sntry of Ireland : he viewed it as any thing but a
boon. The Solicitor-General admitted that there were defects in the
act ; the act was passed in 1828, but the defects had not yet been
remedied : then was he not in some degree justified in believing that
the defects of the act were irremediable? He should support the
motion of the hon. member for Waterfonl. He regretted that ever
the act was brought in. The efforts of the landlords had been, since
1815. to clear the estates—the clearance was in natural progress.—
the effect of the act was to urge such clearances much too sharply.
(Hear.) The subletting act had called forth more opposition than
it deserved, he admitted ; at the same time, he must also urge that
the act had considerably aggravated the distresses of Ireland. He
should prefer the repeal of the existing act, and the bringing in of
some such bill as was contemplated by the honourable member for
Waterford. _ . . . .

Lord F. L. GOWER observed, that he had last session brought in a
bill to alleviate the act ; that bill would be renewed by his successor and
right hon. friend (Sir H. Hardinge). As to the act itself, he feared
that it was passed much too late ; it ought to have passed much sooner.
Sir H. H A 1115ING E said, that he should, to.morrow, move for leave
to brim; in • hill to explain and amend the Sub-letting Act; it would
be nearly similar to that introduced by his noble friend (Lord Gower)
last session. In the valuable report on the state of Ireland, just printed,
Dr. Doyle, as well es others, spoke of the great evils that had resulted
from subletting. The excess of population was a matter that ought to
be considered in the contemplated renewed committee on the state of
Ireland. He had great reason to speak of the advancing condition of
Ireland ; her interests were advancing much more rapidly than did those
of Scotland and England in former periods.
Mr. WYSE said that the main discussion appeared to be, whether
there should be a new or an amended bill; now he was very favourable
to simplicity of legislation, and he therefore thought it would be very
advisable to have a cleat bill on the subject. There was much said
about superabundant population ; but if there were capital, there would
be occupation, and there could only be capital where there was confi-
dence in the government and laws. (Hear.) He was not the friend of
small farms or of large farms in themselves; he wished to promote the
happiness of the people ; but they had heretofore seen that the middle-
men were the cause of the greatest disasters in Ireland. He did not say
that the Subletting Act was the cause of the evils now experienced by
Ireland, but he had complaints to prefer against that Act and the Dis-
franchisement Bill, in not having created a reservoir for such portions
of the population as were thrown out of their stations by the workings
of those acts. lie trusted that the government and that house would do
all they could to amend the institutions of Ireland.
Sir J. BURKE considered the present act to be injurious in its ope.
ration, however goodly may have been the Intentions of those who
I;rought it in.
Mr. RUTH YEN was glad that the set was to be amended, it was
alike injurious to landlord and tenant. He should support the motion.
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN considered that the act was so faulty that it
could not be amended ; he should vote for the motion.
Mr. O'CONNELL replied. He could not but congratulate the house
on the temper with which the motion had been discussed. He must,
however, expect to be in a minority on the division. If that were the
case,he could assure the house that the rejection of his motion would oc-
casion great grief in Ireland ; it was not called for by him alone, but by
the people in all Ireland. The Irish Secretary had talked of Ireland
being in a state of progressive improvement : Ireland would be asto.
nishecl at the language when it reached that country. The Act had
been termed a boon for Ireland, and yet, before the setting of to.
morrow's sun, an alteration of it was to be proposed. The Solicitor.
General of England had said that in Ireland they had not yet ar-
rived at that pitch when the tenants had become the masters of the
landlords; true, that was not the case; but it seemed that they had
arrived at such state in some counties in England, for he understood
tl;at tenants here were dictating what rents they would give. He
should persevere in his motion.
The gallery was cleared for a division. The numbers were—
For the motion ... 24
Against it
Majority against the motion ... —126
POOL-RATES.
- -

Mr. SI. ANEY, on our re-admission into the gallery, was moving for
leave to bring in a bill for the better rating of certain tenements. He
added, as to his projected bill on the Poor Laws, he should not perse-
vere in it according to the notice he bad given; but be was still per-
suaded of the importance of the measure. He abstained from the mo-
tion, because he must accompany it with painful details; he trusted
that the Ministers would coine forward to investigate the causes of the
distresses of the poor.
Motion agreed to—leave given to bring in the bill.
_ POOR IN IRELAND. .

S. RICE moved the re-appnintment of the Select Committee on
the state of the poorer classes in Ireland.
Mr. (RATTAN said. the last report was not exactly •hat they
might have expected. The Committee were appointed on the poor,
and to investigate the necessity of poor laws ; there was a report of
b 7 pages—but only sixtean and a halt' lines on the poor laws, the
only subject of inquiry. Every other subject was discussed but the
real one ; it was the play of Iluudef without the chief character.
Nos, what was the use of reappointing the Committee? If the
question of poor laws were brought forward, it would be said, wait
tor the report of the Committee. Ought they to pursue such course,
while Ireland was in such difficulties? The subject had been thrashed
over and over again in Committees ; where was the use of the felted.
thins? He spoke thus because there was a mass of distress that called
fur action.—(llear.) They had already had nine reports on the sub.
ject within the last five or six years. Further Committees would be
waste of time.

alt. Alderman WA ITHMAN said, it was notorious that the Irish
peasantry were in a state bordering on starvation while complaint was
made in England of the immense quantity of Irish cattle and pigs
courting to this country. Surely there must be some misgovernment to
}nature such a state of things. lle should call the attention of the
house to the distress of the country. Senuing the subject to a corn.
mince was sending it to a grave. Ile was perfectly satisfied, that un.
leas government took the subject into their own hands, all inquiry was
but waste of time

Mr. BROW N LOW said, it was with a view to bring the subject of
poor laws for Ireland before the house, that his honourable friend, the
member for Limerick, wished to re-appoint the committee. For himself
he was favourable to the introduction of poor laws into Ireland, and bad
no doubt the result would be satisfactory to the country.
Mr. BOYLE thought poor laws in Ireland would be found an India-
penbable measure of justice and humanity.

➢lr. O'BRIEN thought the subject of the utmost importance, and
that the committee appointed last year waa not impartially appointed.
The gentlemen who had introduced the subject were excluded. He
would propose that the hon. member for Wicklow and the hon. member
for Newark should be added to the committee.

Blr.V. SMITH bore testimony to the impartiality with which the
committee of last session conducted their labours. He thought the com-
mittee should be re-appointed, with power to send for persona, papers,
and records.

Mr. 8. RICE read the names of the committee of the last Session,
and said it was impossible to suppose that such a committee could have
acted otherwise thanit r esartially.
The motion was to, and the Committee appointed.
Mr. O'CONNEL requested that his name might be withdrawn
from the Committee, as he was confident it would only tend to
delusion.

His name was accordingly withdrawn ;
And on the motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, Lord Killeen's name
was substituted. _ _

Mr. Alderman WA ITH MAN moved for a statement of the daily
employment of the Ordnance transports In the Thames during the elec-
tion of Queenborough. The object, he said, was to she, that they
had been employed to bring voters to Queenborough to vote for the
Government candidates.

Mr. HUME seconded the motion, and lamented that the servants of
the Ordnance were not placed on the same footing as the servants of the
Excise. It cost the country many thousands a year to corrupt the elec-
tors of Qucenborough, two-thirds of whom were in the service of the Ord-
nance. He hoped a law would be passed to prevent the servants of the
Ordnance voting for Members of Parliament.
Sir H. HARDINGE said it was the opinion of the Finance Com-
mittee that the vessels employed by the Ordnance were necessary.
The motion was to.
I The Settlement :11re'oedor Bill was read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Monday.
Mr. SLANEY brought in a bill for rating tenements under scouts
value... Read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Mon-
day se'nnight.
Col. SIBTHORPR gave notice that on Wednesday he should move
fur leave to bring in a bill for the prevention of Mock Auctions.
Mr. BROUGHAM asked whoa a bill was to be brought in for re-
gulating the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery.
Sir R. PEEL said the Solicitor.Oeneral meant to Wing in a bill for
that purpme jmniediately after the Christmas mess.
The House adjourned at Eleven o'Cleck.