rose, pursuant to a notice he had given, to ask for leave to bring in a bill "for enabling Landlords more speedily to recover possession of Farms, unlawfully held over by Tenants," and he trusted the House would give him credit for being aware of the difficulties and embarrassments which surrounded him in approaching a subject, which had at different periods been ineffectually undertaken by persons infinitely more competent to the task than himself. Imputations of inconvenient delay, and of expense disproportioned to the object of litigation, had been frequently, and freely applied to the administration of the law in this country. There was some compensation, perhaps, in the diminution of suits, and the compromise of differences, necessarily consequent upon the unwillingness of parties to engage in dilatory and expensive proceedings, yet, in cases where an indisputable right existed on the one hand, which was fraudulently or forcibly withheld on the other, and where it was absolutely essential for the common purposes of substantial justice, between man and man, in the ordinary and unavoidable transactions of life, that some determination of a matter in dispute, should be arrived at by judicial means,—disproportionate expense, and a delay which frustrated the object of the suit itself, became grievances of an intolerable nature, which when found to have place, loudly called for the prompt interposition of an enlightened legislature. If this proposition were generally true, that truth was the more striking, where the evil affected those I large classes of the community, on a well-ordered establishment of the relations, among which, the domestic economy, and general welfare of the country were mainly dependent. There was also another, and a more just and enlightened mode of diminishing the quantity of litigation, than that arising in the way he had described; namely, by providing a remedy for wrong, so ready, and so accessible, that the wrong doer, not perceiving the advantage of delay likely to be obtained by defending a suit justly instituted against him, would decline engaging in a conflict which was to produce to him nothing but immediate discomfiture and certain expense, and would accordingly yield to the first demand. These observations applied with peculiar force to that description of cases, which he had to introduce to the notice of the House:—the cases of lands held over by refractory and insolvent tenants after the expiration of their interests. Of the two mischiefs he had stated, expense and delay, the latter was the most felt with respect to farms and other large tenements, on account of the excessive damage, particularly in the case of farms, which frequently resulted from it; while the former operated most vexatiously as to cottages, and small houses in large towns, occupied frequently by lawless persons, where the expense of proceeding by regular course of ejectment, frequently exceeded the fee simple value of the tenement itself. The diminution of this undue expense with respect to small tenements, he should hope to effect by a future distinct measure, whereby he should attempt to provide a more summary and cheap remedy, analogous to one of which Ireland already had the benefit. The advantage of what he now proposed would be most felt in the cases of farms and other considerable occupations, though, if permitted to extend to all descriptions of tenements, it would, he thought, with respect to all, be found productive of very beneficial results. With regard to farms, it had become a notorious practice for a tenant, who was not provided with a farm to remove to, or who found himself in insolvent circumstances, and especially for one whose tenancy determined at Lady-day or Mayday, to hold over the possession till the latest possible period, namely, till Michaelmas term in the November following. In order to effect this, he appeared to, and defended the ejectment which was brought against him; but, which could not be tried till the summer assizes. The landlord then, indeed, obtained a verdict, but according to the present course of process, he could not regain possession till the term in November. Now, in the first place, the landlord had, in all probability, entered into, an agreement for a lease to a new tenant, who must quit his I former farm, and who being disappointed j of his new one, had cause of complaint? and action against the landlord. In the next place, when the landlord recovered possession, all the crops and produce of the year were swept away; but what was worse, irreparable waste and damage were often committed by the ploughing and cropping old pasture lands, and excessive cropping of others out of due course. Again, it was not till the spring assizes of the ensuing year, that an action for mesne profits and waste, and dilapidations, could be brought to trial, and then the tenant had perhaps absconded, or gone to gaol, and no effects could be found on which to levy the damages recovered. It very frequently happened, however, that the landlord did not think it I worth his while to sue for mesne profits and wastes, owing to the apparently insolvent condition of the tenant, who thus accomplished with impunity all this undue advantage to himself, and all this: mischief to his landlord. The existing state of the law too, furnished to the tenant the means of extorting considerable sums of money from the landlord, who, aware of the tenant's power, was glad to get rid of him on these terms. This was a general account of the evil as it applied to farms, and which in a qualified degree was applicable to tenements of other descriptions. In framing the remedy which he should venture to propose, he had on the one hand anxiously kept in view the propriety of reserving to the tenant, the means of trying all real questions between him and the landlord, by the verdict of a jury, while on the other, he had endeavoured to protect the landlord against the frauds which had been practised, by providing him with some security for the responsibility of the tenant, in case he should persist in maintaining possession contrary to the opinion of the court, which might call upon him for that security. The mode he had devised, when divested of its legal forms and machinery, was simply this:—that when the tenancy was determined either by the expiration of the lease, or in the case of a tenancy from year to year, by regular notice to quit, and the landlord had commenced his action of ejectment to recover possession, the court in which it might be brought, should be impowered, upon the application of the landlord, if after strict proof of all the necessary facts and hearing the parties, it should be of opinion against the tenant, to call upon him to find bail to answer the costs of the action, and the damages which might be recovered against him for mesne profits. If he should fail to appear or to find bail, then judgment to be immediately entered up for the landlord. The consequence of those proceedings would be, that the landlord would either obtain early possession, or if the tenant found the bail required for the purpose of trying his right by the verdict of a jury at the next assizes, the landlord would be furnished with some security against material fraud and loss. It would be observed, that the tenant would not be called upon to find bail unless the opinion of the court were decidedly against his claim to retain possession, upon hearing the affidavits and argument; for if it should appear that he had fair grounds, or the case were doubtful, the landlord would be left to pursue the action in the ordinary course; and he trusted it would be thought that he had made a sufficient reserve for the tenant of the benefit of trial by jury, since, by finding bail, he might still, notwithstanding the opinion of the court, keep the landlord out of possession until a verdict passed against the tenant at the assizes. In that event, however, he had not thought it right to leave him the undue advantage which the law now gave him of retaining possession till the November following, but he had provided for immediate possession being given to the landlord, who would thus obtain it (as in the case of an arable farm was most important), before the corn harvest, if the result of this second hearing were adverse to the tenant,— satisfactory means, however, being reserved to him of obtaining a new trial.—The only other material alteration in the law which he proposed by the present bill was, that the jury might by the same verdict by which the possession was adjudicated to the landlord, give damages for mesne profits, in order to supersede the necessity and inconvenience of a subsequent suit, which, as he had shown, was too frequently abortive. In order still further to meet the objection which might remain to exposing parties whose credit or whose case might be such that they could not find the bail required, to the hazard of being wrongfully evicted without the verdict of a jury, and effectually to guard against the possibility of titles being brought into question by this mode of proceeding, he had also provided, that the operation of this bill should be limited to holdings under leases or agreements in writing. Accordingly, there was perfect security for the case brought before a court being actually one arising between landlord and tenant, and as the writing would necessarily show the commencement and duration of the tenancy, very little would be left in any case, for the peculiar province of a jury This incidental advantage also would result; the anxiety of landlords to bring their property within the operation of this bill would materially diminish the number of parole tenancies, which had ever been a fertile source of litigation. He had now imparted to the House the substance of what he at present proposed. If it were satisfied that a grievance requiring redress in fact existed, it would, he trusted, entertain the question, by permitting him to bring in this bill, leaving the nature and character of the remedy to be discussed, and after it should have had the I benefit of a matured consideration, to be varied according to the pleasure of the House.

after adverting to several protecting duties which had been granted to various branches of Irish trade by the act of Union, and which would cease in the present year, declared it to be his intention to move that those duties should be further continued for a time to be limited. This proceeding was rendered necessary by the present state of Irish trade and manufacture. He then moved the following Resolutions: 1. "That it is expedient that the duties payable under two acts made in the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, on certain articles the manufacture of either country enumerated in the Schedule No. 2 to the said acts respectively annexed being 10l. per cent on the true value thereof, be further continued till the 1st of Jan. 1825; and that three fourth parts thereof be further continued till the 1st of Jan. 1830; and that two fourth parts thereof be further continued till the 1st of Jan. 1835; and that the remaining fourth part thereof be further continued to the 1st of Jan. 1840, when the whole thereof shall finally cease and determine. 2. That the duties payable under the said acts on the woollen manufactures of Great Britain and Ireland, imported from one country into the other, be further continued till the 1st of Jan. 1825; and that three fourth parts thereof be further continued to the 1st of Jan. 1830; and that two fourth parts thereof be further continued to the 1st of Jan. 1835; and that the remaining fourth part thereof be further continued to the 1st of Jan. 1840, when the whole thereof shall finally cease and determine. 3. That the duties now payable on salt, hops, and coals, imported into Ireland from Great Britain, shall continue payable until further provision be made by parliament with respect to such duties."—The first resolution being put,

said, he was glad to see even that the time was to come when the country would rouse to those right principles, from which there never should have been any deviation; and hoped, that when the question of bounties with respect to linen, was brought forward, a proposition would be adopted to limit the existence of those bounties also to a certain period, as they were quite as objectionable, upon principle, as the duties referred to in the resolutions before the committee.

concurred with the general principles of the hon. gentleman, but he perceived that the hon. gentleman himself was not prepared to apply those principles to Ireland. The situation of Ireland was, indeed, very peculiar, as far as related to the provisions of the Union., for the protection and encouragement of the manufactures of that country. Whether the duties under consideration were calculated to afford valid protection to the Irish manufacture or not, was a question which he would not now discuss, but he maintained that it was not contemplated by the articles of Union that those duties should terminate in twenty years, and that to withdraw them suddenly would be productive of serious inconvenience and injury in Ireland. There were other duties which it was the intention of his right hon. friend to propose, and which were of a different nature from that referred to in this motion. He meant the duties on coals, hops, and salt; and of the first he could not approve—because he thought an article so material to the Irish, as fuel, should not be subject to such a duty. He did not, however, intend to oppose his right hon. friend's proposition, particularly from a consideration of his liberality towards Ireland, but still he must express a wish that the duty to which he alluded was reduced, although he admitted that its amount was not altogether very onerous.

observed, that the duties alluded to were protecting duties for England as well as for Ireland; and expressed a difference of opinion from his right hon. friend with respect to the duty upon coals.

considered those duties injurious to Ireland as well as to England, especially in the intercourse between the two countries.

declared himself an advocate for the total removal of all obstacles to the commercial intercourse between England and Ireland. He thought that the custom-houses between the two countries should cease to exist—that the interchange of their productions and manufactures should be entirely uninterrupted—that, in a word, the passage across the Channel should be as free and unembarrassed as that from one town to another in either country. It was, indeed, most vexatious to think, that every man now passing from the one country to the other was liable to have, not only his portmanteau or trunks, but even his person and the clothes he were rigidly examined by custom-house officers. Such a system ought not to be allowed to exist.