The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-02-16 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY.

Mr. THORNELY said he wished to ask a question of the right
hon. gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade with
regard to a bill promised last year to enable joint stock com-
panies to wind up their concerns. He wished to know whether
any progress had been made with the bill, and whether it was
likely soon to be submitted to the house.
Sir. S. CRAWFORD brought forward his motion for providing
compensation for tenants in Ireland quitting their holdings.
It was with pain that he had seen a resolution, signed by the
name of an Irish peer, declaring itself opposed to the moderate
proposition of the noble lord for the reliet of the people of that
country, and in which the measure empowering relieving
officers to grant oat-door relief under certain circumstances
was reprobated. With such circumstances before them, it was
right that they should inquire into how far the landed proprie-
tors of Ireland were responsible for the state of things which
prevailed. He found by the returns that in the first six months
of 1846, the exports of corn from Ireland amountedto 1,776,000
quarters, while imports of the government amounted to only
118,000 quarters during the same period. The gentlemen did
not return to the people to give profitable employment, and the
result was that the proprietor did not employ the people—the
farmers did not employ the people, and the occupiers did not
employ the people, and the people did not work for themselves
because they had not the proper remuneration for their labour.
There could be no doubt that the want of security for the
tenant, with regard to their lands, was a source of misery to
the people. There were two counties, one in the south, and
another in the north of Ireland, between which he would make
a comparison—he referred to the counties of Down and Limer-
ick; and in one of those, the distressed condition of the peo-
ple arose entirely from the small holdings having no security
for their tenure. The number of farms in Down, holding from
one to five acres, was 14,000, and in Limerick it was only 7,000.
Tne number of farms in Down, from 5 to 15 acres in extent,
was 11,000, and in Limerick the farms of the same description
amounted to 7,000. The number of farms over 30 acres in
Down was 15,000, and in Limerick 300, and yet in Limerick the
presentment amounted to 186,600, and in Down to 2,976.
There was a prevalent feeling in 'certain quarters that small
lettings should be done away with ; that no one should be the
farmer of land unless he had held the plough. But how could
they ever expect the labourers torise unless there were different
sizes of farms. In the county of Down the benefit ,of small
lettings had proved to be benencial. The tenant right for which
he contended was such, that the holder of land was not re-
quired to give up possession 'without receiving from the pro-
prietor the value of the improvements he had made.. Ile was
no Admirer of cotter tenants, but he.did maintain that a con-
siderable degree of the prosperity of the north of Ireland de-
pended on the division of land into small but reasonably sized
farms.

The motion was supported by Sir D. Norris, and opposed by
Mr. Tute and Lord Castlerea.
Mr. AGLIONBY obtained leave to bring in a hill for the
amendment of the Commons' Inclosnre Act.
Mr. STRUTT, in an explanatory speech, moved ihe introduc-
tion of the bill for regulating the proceedings of the commis-
missioners, and amending the law relating to railways, which,
after some discussion, was introduced and read a first time.
Mr. SMITH O'llamti requested Lord George Bentinck to
postpone for a fortnight his motion for the second reading of
the Railways (Ireland) Bill.
,Lord JOHN Rus-sxm, asked him to proceed with it at once.
The borrowing of .e 16,000,000 for the purpose of laying it out
on Irish railroads-was not consistent with the views of govern-
ment. The scheme of Lord G. Bentinck ought to be rejected,
not only on its own account, but also on account of its being
utterly irreconcilable with the plan of finance adopted by the
government for the finances of the year. He did not wish any
member to vote-against Lord G. Bentinck's motion under the
idea that the government had any intention of introducing any
plan this session'for an extensive system-of railways in Ireland.
Lord G. BENTINCK felt himself to be in a painful and diffi-
cult position. -He had received a remest from thirty-four Irish
noblemen and gentlemen, desiring him to postpone his motion
tiil some future day. When he was told of the meeting which
had recently taken place at the Treasury, and of the declara-
tion of his noble friend to stake the existence of the ministry
on the defeat of his measure, and when he was subsequently
told that all other measures for the relief of Irish distress
would be indefinitely postponed in case the ministry resigned,
he had been prepared to postpone his motion for a short time.
But, after the -challenge of the prime minister, he should feel
himself guilty of a dereliction of public duty if he hesitated
one moment about persevering with his motion.
The order,of the day was then read. The second reading of
the bill was, however, postponed till Friday, when the debate
on it was to come on, immediately after the third reading of
the Destitute Foor (Ireland) Bill.